California to DENY Voter/Election Records to Trump's Election Fraud Commission
-
Here's one article about Mississippi's admission of voter fraud (there are many):
http://thehayride.com/2017/05/mississippi-mayor-admits-voter-fraud-whats-done/
This is why Mississippi doesn't want an investigation. But like I said in my previous post, Trump don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or a Whatever. If you break the law, there will be consequences, and we need to clean up the mess. It's ridiculous that with our technology this is still going on. All the states that don't cooperate, have something to hide. You can say they're lazy and don't want to do a recount, but we know they're corrupt. They've been getting away with it for decades and this administration wants to do something about it. What's wrong with that? Why are you guys hating on Trump for trying to bring integrity to the election system? It's one of our checks and balances against the government. It needs to be fixed so we can be accurate and the people's voice is heard. I see nothing wrong with this and all you guys looking for something to blame Trump for are just lost souls looking for that which makes sense to the conclusions you've already drawn.
-
Here's one article about Mississippi's admission of voter fraud (there are many):
http://thehayride.com/2017/05/mississippi-mayor-admits-voter-fraud-whats-done/
This is why Mississippi doesn't want an investigation. But like I said in my previous post, Trump don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or a Whatever. If you break the law, there will be consequences, and we need to clean up the mess. It's ridiculous that with our technology this is still going on. All the states that don't cooperate, have something to hide. You can say they're lazy and don't want to do a recount, but we know they're corrupt. They've been getting away with it for decades and this administration wants to do something about it. What's wrong with that? Why are you guys hating on Trump for trying to bring integrity to the election system? It's one of our checks and balances against the government. It needs to be fixed so we can be accurate and the people's voice is heard. I see nothing wrong with this and all you guys looking for something to blame Trump for are just lost souls looking for that which makes sense to the conclusions you've already drawn.
If there are many examples of voter fraud in Mississippi, you'd better do better than the one you cited. The mayor of Gloster, Mississippi, population 914, admitted to helping 25 people fill out their absentee ballot. I'm sure that explains why Hillary won the popular vote!
-
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how small or how large. Anyone who is engaged in it will be adamantly opposed to an investigation, and that's why you have these 29 states that are opposed. Because they ARE involved in it. It isn't about protecting people's public voting records from the federal government. It's about Trump enforcing the law, as he is the executive. It's about curtailing fraud. The fact that they are pushing against Trump investigating their potential voting fraud, and they're pleading the fifth, speaks VOLUMES. It draws us to the possible conclusion that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote. Especially since it was recently uncovered that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSNs to vote illegally.
-
For whatever reason, some states are refusing to prove they are obeying federal voting laws.
If this happened under Obama, liberals would lose their minds, more than they already have.
I do feel that some states are only doing this to cuck to the anti- Trump crowd and others are falsely playing the "states' rights" crowd.
-
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how small or how large. Anyone who is engaged in it will be adamantly opposed to an investigation, and that's why you have these 29 states that are opposed. Because they ARE involved in it. It isn't about protecting people's public voting records from the federal government. It's about Trump enforcing the law, as he is the executive. It's about curtailing fraud. The fact that they are pushing against Trump investigating their potential voting fraud, and they're pleading the fifth, speaks VOLUMES. It draws us to the possible conclusion that Hillary didn't actually win the popular vote. Especially since it was recently uncovered that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSNs to vote illegally.
Sorry, but gotta keep you honest. First, there are no federal laws regulating voters. The only federal election laws relate to campaign finances. Therefore, not only does Trump have not duty to enforce any laws regarding voter fraud, he has no jurisdiction over State laws. And although he may not be a conservative, conservatives strongly support states' rights. Also to suggest Mississippi has something to cover up is ridiculous. I found the case you cited, as well as two more that involved less than 50 votes. Sounds like they are doing a pretty good job.
They are not pleading the fifth, they are maintaining their sovereignty over their own data. I wouldn't be suprised if one of the states asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. I wouldn't count on the so-called conservative judges siding with Trump, either, given the whole states' rights thing.
Second your statement that 1.5 million illegals used stolen SSN to vote illegally is patently false. Yes, it is estimated that 1.4 million illegal immigrants used false SSN to get JOBS. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/14-million-illegals-working-stolen-social-security/ As it turns out, the IRS encouraged them to do so, in order to collect income tax on their wages. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#1d58cf754c04There is no evidence that they also used these numbers to vote illegally. Although, I admit, that is a legitimate concern. If Trump's commission was really interested in the truth, they would provide those numbers to the states and have them cross-check their voter rolls. That, I think would be a legitimate inquiry and could be argued was helping the states do their own policing more effectively. It must, however be left at the state level or completely reform the way we vote for president.
Lastly, the facile assumption that all illegals would have voted for Hillary is a stretch. Maybe some don't want more immigrants coming in and competing for their low-paying jobs. Some might believe he would create more jobs. Some, as strict Catholics, might be opposed to the Democratic pro-choice stance. There are very few groups these days that vote monolithically for one party or another.
-
For whatever reason, some states are refusing to prove they are obeying federal voting laws.
If this happened under Obama, liberals would lose their minds, more than they already have.
I do feel that some states are only doing this to cuck to the anti- Trump crowd and others are falsely playing the "states' rights" crowd.
I will give you a pass since you have lived in the UK for so long, but there are no federal voting laws, except the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was passed to outlaw practiced that disenfranchised uneducated, mostly black, voters.
Believe me, if any president tried to impose federal regulation of voting, liberals would have a cow, because these tend toward voter suppression.
Outside of the 1965 law, the states and only the stateshave control of who does and does not vote in their states, as long as they abide by the Constitution. -
Illegals voting is a states' issue?
-
Illegals voting is a states' issue?
Absolutely. It is solely a state issue. The federal government has no role in maintaining the integrity of voter rolls. That there is so much controversy over voter ID laws, which vary from state to state. There have been several Supreme Court decisions, of course, that deal with the matter. The Court, however, must only rule on the constitutionality of the states' laws. Probably the most important case was Bush vs. Gore in 2000 regarding the Florida recount. Here is a summary of the issues:
Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
-
And you can add to the roll-call of states recognizing, and refusing, this absurd Trumpian vanity project: Maryland, Delaware, and ruby-red (in presidential elections) Louisiana.
Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R) said the presidential commission could purchase the limited information legally available to candidates running for office.
"You're not going to play politics with Louisiana’s voter data," he said in a statement.
States' rights advocates are a powerful force, even in these "United" States – another eighth-grade civics lesson for our woefully unprepared "leader."
-
Just because they are red, doesn't mean they don't have a problem with fraud. Trump has shown that he doesn't care if you are red or blue, the law is the law. Draining the swamp doesn't mean just going against democrats. That's the narrow frame of reference you are drawing conclusions from.
-
Just because they are red, doesn't mean they don't have a problem with fraud. Trump has shown that he doesn't care if you are red or blue, the law is the law. Draining the swamp doesn't mean just going against democrats. That's the narrow frame of reference you are drawing conclusions from.
So now our President is some uber-policeman who is going to tell sates how to enforce their own laws? There is no federal jurisdiction here. If anything, his commission can make recommendations to the states. Even congress is probably limited by the constitution on how much it can change voting laws. Certainly, he cannot do anything by Executive Order. The entire exercise if just to give his ridiculous claim about illegals making up Hillary's popular vote margin a shred of validity.
-
Uber policeman??? He's the HEAD of the EXECUTIVE branch of GOVERNMENT! His most vital role is to EXECUTE and ENFORCE the LAW. What is this nonsense that "he cannot do anything by Executive Order???" Are you really saying that you admit their is all this fraud going on and he can't do anything about it??? He already HAS done something about it. He has made it a HUGE issue that everyone is talking about and considering, as the leader of the free world. We all know there is fraud, and the one's in charge of local government are the ones doing it. Of course they are against him, because they used vote fraud to put THEMSELVES in power.
-
I am not going to argue with your ignorance of how our government works. He is the Chief Executive of the Federal Government. That does not give him the power to change state laws or even enforce state laws. For example, he could not sign an Executive Order that raises the minimum driving age to 25, because states grant driving licenses. I am not admitting any significant problem with illegal voting, I am just pointing out that the commission is investigating a problem that they have no power to remedy even IF they find one.
-
Ok, so voting is a states' rights issue, so what is to stop them from allowing illegals to vote?
Many states already pander to illegals by giving them driver's licences and countless other rights.
-
Nah, he DID do something about it. He EXPOSED it. That makes him pretty awesome. Now they feel the pressure and voters will use their checks and balances to vote in people who do something about it. You are just plain wrong on so many levels, it's astounding.
-
Ok, so voting is a states' rights issue, so what is to stop them from allowing illegals to vote?
Many states already pander to illegals by giving them driver's licences and countless other rights.
There is a good summary of Voting law here: https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the federal government can interfere, since Article I of the Constitution gave states the responsibility for overseeing federal elections. Any fundamental change would require at the very least an act of congress, but more probably a constitutional amendment.Think of it this way–the president cannot insist that all states strictly enforce speeding laws, even though that probably would save thousands of lives a year.
-
Nah, he DID do something about it. He EXPOSED it. That makes him pretty awesome. Now they feel the pressure and voters will use their checks and balances to vote in people who do something about it. You are just plain wrong on so many levels, it's astounding.
He exposed nothing. Trump got the idea from Alex Jones and InfoWars. He simply has used the presidency to create a presidential commission to look into it. He isn't fooling anyone except his die-hard supporters. That is why there is such wide-spread push-back against it.
-
You were the one asking what he was going to do about it… Then when you forgot that he actually did something about it by creating the commission, you claimed more nonsense. You just don't pay attention. You are stuck on old and fabricated news that has been debunked. You keep making statements that show you aren't aware of what's going on. The wide-spread push-back is because the one's who are hiding things don't want to be punished. Period. There is no other explanation.
-
Think of it this way–the president cannot insist that all states strictly enforce speeding laws, even though that probably would save thousands of lives a year.
Reagan did with the drinking age. He said that any state that didn't raise the age to 21 wouldn't get Transport funding.
Similar thing with the 55mph speed limit.
++++
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States
According to that, it's federal law that prevents non citizens from voting in federal elections.
The President is the top enforcer of federal law.
State, county and local elections are up to them, not the federal government.
San Francisco, for example, will allow anyone over 18 and meeting residency requirements to vote in the school board elections from 2018.
If you scroll down the page, California has an extremely worrying way of allowing non citizens to vote in federal elections, violating federal voting laws.
I personally know someone here in the UK who, despite the truth, signed a similar thing to be allowed to vote in UK/EU elections.
I'm a dual national so I can legally vote in in the US/UK/EU.
Voter fraud isn't hard to do since Voter ID and proof of citizenship is deemed racist.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting
Under Obama, liberals said it was the federal government's job to control (or NOT as in this case) who gets to vote in federal elections.
Under Trump, liberals scream "states' rights".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login