Has Mr. Trump taken his insurgent campaign too far by questioning the legitimacy of our free elections?

2016-10-20T02:23:45-04:00

Elections and our way of life in general depend upon the public's confidence. As SMs we serve to defend a constitution that has proved to be robust, interpretable and inclusive. It is a constitution that has borne a great citizen candidate in Donald Trump. But how does his thumbing his nose at the legitimacy of a system that created his candidacy serve him?

Response by SPC James Harsh made Oct 20 at 2016 2:31 AM

2016-10-20T02:31:52-04:00

Mrs. Clinton says that Russia is rigging the election and willing to go to war although there is no credible evidence to prove it but Trump calls for eyes on the ballots and so doesn't Obama. Mr.Turmp gave an answer stating that the election is rigged because Hillary shouldn't be eligible to run for Potus. He made the reference to a recent event in which a Four star General is standing trial for lying once to the FBI.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Oct 20 at 2016 2:58 AM

2016-10-20T02:58:44-04:00

Google the current Florida Democrats Lawsuits against the State of Florida and their demands for changing registration procedures and see how large scale voter Fraud can be redefined as OK or legal. In the graphic you have to be careful of the word "Credible" is not synonymous with "Detected". Because as I mentioned earlier with Currency exchanges across Europe prior to the Euro. The reason it was done was a preventitive to Oraganized Crime, Counterfieting and limiting the size of the underground economy. In almost all those cases a large part of it is "undetectable".....which made the currency exchanges necessary. Nothing wrong with being cautious.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 20 at 2016 3:02 AM

2016-10-20T03:02:33-04:00

Voter fraud happens on a massive scale; it is not just "35 M&Ms".

From the horse's mouth...

Note - Robert Creamer and Scott Foval (seen in this video) have been fired by the Clinton campaign following their exposure in these videos. This is just the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

Rigging the Election - Video II: Mass Voter Fraud

In the second video of James O'Keefe's new explosive series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully ...

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Oct 20 at 2016 3:36 AM

2016-10-20T03:36:49-04:00

Your graphic doesn't take the electoral college into account. Elections today turn on a few hundred thousand votes at absolute most, not millions.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 20 at 2016 4:09 AM

2016-10-20T04:09:31-04:00

Not buying it. Sorry.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 5:03 AM

2016-10-20T05:03:23-04:00

The TOTAL population of the US is estimated to be almost 320 million. Voting age Americans number around 219 million.

Using simple non-common core math:
834 million - 219 million = 615 million excess general election ballots.

The 219 million is "voting age Americans." In reality the number of REGISTERED voters is around 146 million.

Again, using simple non-common core math:
834 million - 146 million = 688 million excess general election ballots.

How do we get to 35? Loyola Law School must be using common core math.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 20 at 2016 6:01 AM

2016-10-20T06:01:18-04:00

Sir,

As the Wall Street Journal's John Fund reports, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken’s narrow, 312-vote victory in 2008 over incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman may have come as the result of people being allowed to vote who, under existing law, shouldn’t have been.

The certification of Franken as the victor came only after a series of recounts dragging out for almost half a year. It also sparked an investigation by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group that compared the list of those recorded as having voted in the election against what Fund calls criminal rap sheets.

… At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

There is no guarantee the voiding of those 393 votes would have changed the outcome of the election. However, with credible, original source, documented evidence presented, by an interested private party investigation, both the Minnesota Attorney General and the State Election commission issued summary decisions with no investigation on their part. Their joint decision was to "let sleeping dogs lie."

Had Senator Franken's election been deemed illegitimate. The Democrats would have been stymied in there efforts to pass Obamacare.

In a free society, no act or process of government is above question, ever.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Oct 20 at 2016 6:19 AM

2016-10-20T06:19:30-04:00

We all have a vested interest in fair and untainted elections. There can be no doubt that in our history there has been election fraud. The graph above is typical of the false narrative on the way our electoral process actually works.
One vote per legitimate, registered citizens should be everyone's goal. Why some are concerned about voter ID is concerning. We should all want to know every ballot is legitimate. This is 2016, almost everyone has a state, city or federal ID card of come sort, if not we can also do provisional ballots while we ensure the person is a registered voter. I want no one disenfranchised but I also want no false ballots cast.

When you look at the electoral college, many states winner takes all and some of these states have been pretty close in previous election. Anyone remember Florida and the hanging chad recounts all the way to the supreme court? That is how close they can be and for all the marbles. We need to be sure about every vote.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 20 at 2016 7:30 AM

2016-10-20T07:30:23-04:00

In the 2000 Election (Bush v Gore), the actual difference in winning votes amounted to less than 500~ (popular votes) due to the "winner take all" concept we use with the electoral college (Specifically FL). Though I make the argument that failure to take TN is what cost him the election.

Had we used the the proposed mechanism (selective recount) of the Democrats, it would have been closer to 200 (and some show as low as 60) in the other direction (giving VP Gore the win).

Those 35~ votes you mention, if placed in the right spot.... can make a huge difference.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 20 at 2016 7:46 AM

2016-10-20T07:46:08-04:00

In order to ensure that liberties are maintained, it is always appropriate to question this. With so many corrupt people running the system, it is very important to have that discussion. If we keep looking at it, then there is less of a chance of it becoming a widespread problem.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 7:46 AM

2016-10-20T07:46:19-04:00

Or does he question a system people have manipulated to their own benefit? It's hard to say!

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Oct 20 at 2016 8:47 AM

2016-10-20T08:47:34-04:00

While I don't care for the way Trump handled it last night, in this case he was right. This is not about Trump or any particular party, it is about the system. The people have slowly but surely lost a grip on the system that was designed to be, by us and for us. It is now layered with so many levels of bureaucracy and corruption you can hardly even find the truth.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Oct 20 at 2016 9:44 AM

2016-10-20T09:44:29-04:00

I quite reading when I saw "Vox" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a VERY biased, anti Trump, liberal propaganda machine...One thing Trump has gotten right is , politics as usual, isnt working, and needs real change. I hear of "fear" Trump supporters are going to be intimidating voters at the polls, what a joke. If you want threats,riots,looting,and intimidation,,,,find some Hillary supporters. Liberals like the freedoms of speech and protest, BUT no responsibility or tolerance of the conservative values that made their liberal views possible............

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 20 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-10-20T09:46:21-04:00

COL Lee Flemming In Cincinnati alone the last presidential election there was 3 people convicted of voter fraud. Each on each of those occasions people had voted at least 4 times for their candidate. Right across the river there were 7 allegations of voter fraud that I did not follow to the end. I think your numbers may be skewed just a bit. It is an opinion not facts, but I am comfortable that 35 is not a real number.

My understanding is that Trump is talking about the media endorsing a candidate and is guilty of trying to sway undecided voters. In a poll of news media personnel these people admitted that 350 had donated to Clinton's campaign and 50 had donated to Trump. So I see his point.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Oct 20 at 2016 9:51 AM

2016-10-20T09:51:30-04:00

No.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 20 at 2016 10:09 AM

2016-10-20T10:09:10-04:00

Have you watched the Project Veritas reports? They are clearly demonstrating ample evidence bringing into question the legitimacy of the US election process. Watch it then reconsider your response to this question

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 20 at 2016 10:49 AM

2016-10-20T10:49:44-04:00

How many general election ballots? If there is 834 million, Houston we have a problem.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Oct 20 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-10-20T11:10:58-04:00

It's just my opinion but any time we have even ONE case of confirmed/proven fraud, then it calls into question the entire results. How many more cases were NOT detected or proven? Can we really say the results are legitimate considering just a small handful of votes in key areas can change the entire electoral college outcome (I think it was MAJ Private RallyPoint Member that pointed that out first)?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 11:23 AM

2016-10-20T11:23:31-04:00

I do not think that our election will be impacted by voter fraud.

However, I also think that ONE case of voter fraud is very VERY wrong and should be investigated and punished if found true.

The other thing I find wrong is the political exaggerations to show a point. The figures here may not be an exaggeration but they are certainly cached to over emphasize a point. And as shown people do see though the BS (PGBS that is).

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 20 at 2016 11:25 AM

2016-10-20T11:25:14-04:00

it's there and it is serious...

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Oct 20 at 2016 11:47 AM

2016-10-20T11:47:24-04:00

No I don't think he's gone too far questioning the legitimacy of the election. I also wouldn't consider it thumbing his nose at the system that created him. The graphic is misleading because it implies that the only voter fraud that happened is what's within Trump's hand. Those are the credible allegations which basically means someone was caught. Any sane person would start to question the legitimacy of an election if you find out voter fraud is occurring. Let's not forget that the DNC was caught stacking the deck in Hillary's favor over Bernie Sanders. Even among the majority of my die-hard Bernie supporters, most of them are swinging towards Gary Johnson and have adopted a never Hillary mantra. So questions start coming up... who exactly is voting for her. I genuinely have a single person in my friends list supporting Hillary... but the rest of my liberal friends regard her as poison.

Another thing to consider is the wide spread voter apathy that people are feeling this year. In my state, less than 1/3 of all registered voters actually voted. Now imagine if 1/3 of those non-voters just happened to have all voted for a single candidate just to swing the state majority.

You asked how questioning the process which allowed him to advance so far would serve him. Well the simple answer is he has based his entire campaign around the "We The People" philosophy. With both major parties set out to destroy him, he is getting people riled up about establishment government and career politicians. He is making more people aware of the corrupt nature of politics. Even if he doesn't win, he'll already have most people believing the election was bought and paid for by the Clinton foundation. That's how his questioning serves him.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 20 at 2016 12:07 PM

2016-10-20T12:07:17-04:00

Nope... not far enough!

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 12:16 PM

2016-10-20T12:16:57-04:00

Honestly its a valid question. As (supposedly) Stalin once said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Considering that there isn't any actual formal system to see who is voting in most places and also noting that these locations are staffed by volunteers with only a total of 789 federal election monitors at a very small fraction of voting stations. I would be very surprised if 35 was the number of fraudulent votes.

Response by SPC Robert Williams made Oct 20 at 2016 12:49 PM

2016-10-20T12:49:23-04:00

I agree with Trump. There have been several voter fraud incidents found. So who are you to say that the national election won't be rigged too? Komifornia and other states are allowing NON CITIZENS to get a drivers license and vote. So ya saying rigged is right.

Response by SPC Robert Williams made Oct 20 at 2016 12:57 PM

2016-10-20T12:57:26-04:00

Col. He is not thumbing the process, he loves America. What he doesnt like is the fact that there have been many rigged elections. what is to stop them from rigging the elections to get hillery in office?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 1:04 PM

2016-10-20T13:04:34-04:00

http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/?

Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies - HNN...

Academic Researchers: Statistical models applied to 2016 vote data proves Hillary Clinton's win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Oct 20 at 2016 2:03 PM

2016-10-20T14:03:20-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/19/us/elections/fact-check-debate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Fact Checks of the Third Presidential Debate

Reporters for The New York Times fact-checked the statements made by Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump during Wednesday’s presidential debate.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made Oct 20 at 2016 2:53 PM

2016-10-20T14:53:58-04:00

It is called "self-handicapping" he has to find something else to blame for losing this election. We all do it to preserve our self esteem. He's blaming media bias, he's blaming voter fraud, he won't blame the facts of his campaign. He has run a campaign that appeals to a certain population at the exclusion of the rest of Americans. He is losing because he tweets, he isn't presidential, he is disliked more than any candidate in the history of the US. Without women, and the majority don't approve of groping old men, you can't win. Without the Hispanic vote, (20%) of the US population. 33% of the population might vote for him, but that isn't enough to win. This is about a country and not just one segment of the country. We are probably hosed either way, but I trust her more than him. I can't believe I just said that...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 20 at 2016 3:14 PM

2016-10-20T15:14:02-04:00

Most Definitely! Voter Fraud has been Republicans Dogma since from when Reagan was running and like any religious dogma it has no basis in Facts or Reality. Their Beliefs are always more important to them than Facts. The Biggest Pimp, Drug Pusher of the Concept these days is Attny Gen for Kansas Kris Kobach (KKK) and he got laws passed that gave him almost God like powers to address this Fake Issue. Since has Prosecuted 6 cases here in Kansas and Won 3, Population of Kansas is 3 Million or .0001. They have trouble accepting that others disagree with them or it is a Tool or more correctly an Excuse they use for their Voter Disenfranchisement Progroms.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Oct 20 at 2016 3:47 PM

2016-10-20T15:47:56-04:00

Sir our election process has been riddles with fraud for decades, dead folks voting, some folks voting many more times than once. This is a known fact that gets whitewashed all the time. I would no more believe anything from VOX than I would believe the lies from Hillary.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2016 4:39 PM

2016-10-20T16:39:12-04:00

I wish I could have a bowl of skittles representing the number of active duty officers engaging in public partisan expression on this site sir.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 20 at 2016 4:48 PM

2016-10-20T16:48:43-04:00

Sir, are you saying we should start ignoring the documented examples of voter fraud already taking place weeks before the election takes place because we do not want to damage the public's confidence?
I think if the public's confidence is built upon a confident system it will not be broken but if it is dishonest, why should we want confidence in it? Dishonesty and corruption should be rooted out immediately because we want confidence in the system? How is it thumbing your nose at something if what you are pointing out is corruption through out the system? The reason Donald Trump has risen to the level he has is because people are already disgusted with the corruption they see?

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2016 4:17 AM

2016-10-21T04:17:15-04:00

I don't think so.

And the studies that show an extremely small number of voters cannot be correct.

I dismiss any reporting about dead people still be registered. Who care as long as they aren't voting.

There are too many reports of dead people voting. All you have to do is search "dead people voting" and read the news ports. Ok, discount any news sources who are pro-Trump but there are numerous investigations going on right now dead people voting and some have voted for years after they passed away.

How do some election officials try to explain dead people voting? They say, Oh, people were just signing by the name of the wrong person when they voted. It takes a whole lot of faith to be able to believe that.

Any of the referenced cases are hundreds more than 35 M&Ms.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/

CBS4 Investigation Finds Dead Voters Casting Ballots In Colorado

A CBS4 Investigation has found multiple cases of dead men and women voting in Colorado months, and in some cases years after their deaths, a revelation that calls into question safeguards designed to prevent such occurrences.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Oct 21 at 2016 7:02 PM

2016-10-21T19:02:06-04:00

You have heard about what happened to Bernie right? You still belittle election fraud and theft?

Response by PO3 Nichalas Enser made Oct 27 at 2016 3:09 PM

2016-10-27T15:09:53-04:00

Can agree with arguments that even one case of voter fraud is grounds to do something. Most folks would agree, but the question is what to do about it.

If you want to avoid even the appearance of voter disenfranchisement, which should be just as big of a deal to those worried about voter fraud, then a national ID card is about the best, possible, remedy. The cards should be issued over a two to three year period, where the IDs will be available via mobile centers, that will visit remote locations, be made available at night and on weekends (for shift workers and such), at nursing homes, hospitals, poorer neighborhoods, richer neighborhoods, et cetera.

Voting is treated so haphazardly, it is almost funny - Federal law should cover all elections that place someone into Federal office - then, if a state or other locale wishes to use some other system for their own elections, they can bear the costs. This should apply to both primaries and general elections, both being held on one day - the primary on 08JUN and the General on 08NOV, with adequate options for early and postal voting, as long as the ID is verified. If someone appears at a polling station without their ID, a provisional ballot should be taken and then followed up to determine if the vote is legitimate.

After the initial issuance period, then, most likely, the Social Security Administration, will be charged with issuing the credential, separate from someone's SSN, as each person is issued a SSN.

The new ID would, also, help to curb the hiring of folks who should not be working or working 'off the books' or 'under the table' and if someone is on a job site (of any type) without an ID that the company appropriately registered, both the individual and the company will be held liable. Also, make the penalties for creating fake IDs quite drastic and using one, *slightly* less severe - that should help to curb most issues.

Yes, there will be a cost involved, but the card could be used for a few purposes, that currently are served by an odd combination of state, local, and Federal identification, so the benefits should outweigh the cost. Even though not the largest facing the country, takes far too much time and attention from the other, bigger problems and has a fairly simple remedy.

Fix it, now, and move along.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 1:19 AM

2016-10-28T01:19:51-04:00

COL Flemming,

With all due respect, and by your leave Sir, I feel compelled to address a tangential issue that really came to my notice during the course of this discussion.

I am listed as a top 5%er by dint of the interactions I've generated to date. My issue is this:
We are allowed three modes of expressing an opinion on any particular question or comment; one may vote "UP", one may vote "DOWN" or one may comment.
This, as I soon found out, is not completely true.

In attempting to simply disagree with SSG Tony K's use of a questionable study supposedly authored by academicians at Berkeley/Stanford, I found to my horror that I could NOT give the comment a "DOWN" vote. It appears that I do not possess "enough" "influence points" to have the now dubious "privilege" of disagreeing with ANYTHING!
I am allowed to agree with, or vote "UP" any and everything, but I'm allowed to disagree with, or vote "DOWN", absolutely NOTHING.

Sir, this is organizational stifling of the free flow of opinion and ideas without the threat of command repercussions. It's also an affront to our Army Values.

I am appalled by this and to be honest, my first inclination was to double my "influence points" by splashing this all over social media, but that just wouldn't be fair...would it?

I am going to push this up to the Head Shed, but at this point, whatever response I get is going to be too little, too late...

My apologies for the inconvenience, Sir.

v/r
TNW

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Nov 12 at 2016 11:46 AM

2016-11-12T11:46:07-05:00

I've noticed that the whole "rigged election" rhetoric has quickly died down. Interesting.