Posted on Oct 20, 2016
Has Mr. Trump taken his insurgent campaign too far by questioning the legitimacy of our free elections?
10.8K
179
85
12
12
0
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?
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Constitution
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 37
12
12
0
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.
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.
(12)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
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.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC (Join to see) - That may be a bit misleading.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies
Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - If anything, it was liberal fraud and to insinuate otherwise is bullspit.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
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 ...
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
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
(11)
(0)
SGT Eric Knutson
Cpt, you need to look at reality sometime and get your head out of the sand. It has been proven that areas that have voter ID requierments have a higher percentage of minority (whatever that actually means today) voters putting in their 2 cents on elections. And no, not all of them are Republican areas either, just most of them. The left has been caught many times loading poor folks onto buses and taking them from polling location to polling location to repeat vote, and often times paying these people to do so, some of these people are also convicted felons (who by their own actions have forfited their right to vote)
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
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.
(1)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
Capt. I do believe there is a lot of cheating going on. Enough to shock us. Corruption is in the open now so why bother with a big attempt to hide it. I found out later that the FBI Director had ties to the Clintons. Tray Gordy questioned the Director and we found out how many lies Hillary told. Our entire government system needs a lot of honesty and people fired that doesn't comply. I do believe we in for the big fall otherwise.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MSgt John McGowan, you are exactly right. Elections have consequences.
http://commonsensegovernment.com/the-tytler-cycle-revisited/
http://commonsensegovernment.com/the-tytler-cycle-revisited/
The Tytler Cycle Revisited | Common Sense Government
In 2003 I became very interested in a theory developed by Scottish historian Alexander Tytler, and wrote an article on it at the time, which ironically enough is now getting a lot of attention due to being linked to from Wikipedia.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
Your graphic doesn't take the electoral college into account. Elections today turn on a few hundred thousand votes at absolute most, not millions.
(8)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MAJ (Join to see) - You bring up a good point, now I'm curious what that 834M figure represents.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MAJ (Join to see) - Found it, it was from a study that looked at several elections from 2000-2014 national election ballots. The looked at a total of 834M ballots and found 35 fraudulent ones.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Good ole Hillary is campaigning by the electoral college, just look at the states she is ahead in, she only needs to win those states and she has all the electoral college votes she needs. So the number of voter fruad votes is much less. Do not hold me to this but there was an article out there that said this firm scrubbed the voter rolls and 4 million dead people were registered to vote still, now in the right states those dead people can swing a state for Hillary. Heck everybody knows more dead people vote in Illinois than living.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
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.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SSG John Thornton There is no doubt there has been some election fraud over our history. You know it and I know it. You still haven't watched the video and reacted to what is on it. You are simply unwilling to because you are afraid it will show you what your fair haired children are up to. BTW you put this response in the wrong thread but I know where you intended to post it.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
COL Lee Flemming
SGT William Howell your points are well-taken. Maybe this tactic will work with the voters and the American public. Time will tell, thankfully we do not have long to wait.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
CPT L S - What is your point? I agree the law needs to be changed. I would not presume that you are arguing that we cease being a nation of laws where citizens are free to decide which laws the follow and which laws they do not.
What's more, the Constitution explicitly assumes that felons may be barred from voting. The 14th Amendment — which, like the 15th, was passed during Reconstruction to ensure equal treatment of African Americans — acknowledges that states can disenfranchise people for "participation in rebellion, or other crime." So an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to bar felon disenfranchisement would not only be inconsistent with the intent of that statute, it would exceed Congress' constitutional authority.
Or look at it this way: When someone is kept from voting because he has been convicted of a felony, this does not "result in a denial or abridgement of the right … to vote on account of race or color" (to quote the law); it results in the denial of the right to vote because that person has chosen to commit a serious crime against a fellow citizen.
Finally, even when civil rights laws are used to challenge practices that are not racially discriminatory in their terms, application or intent but simply because they have disproportionate racial effects, the defendant always has an opportunity to show that the practice is still justified. So, for example, requiring English fluency for a particular job may be permissible, even if it disproportionately excludes members of a racial or ethnic group.
Likewise, a state may have strong and legitimate reasons for limiting the right to vote, even though it may have a disproportionate effect. Allowing only citizens to vote may have a disproportionate effect on groups that include many recent immigrants, but that is surely permissible. And the state also has good reasons for denying the vote to those who have committed serious crimes.
We don't let everyone vote — not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don't meet those standards. If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't demand a role in making the law.
Finally, are you capable of arguing without resorting to incendiary histrionics. Quite frankly, the wild-eyed comparisons of the GOP to the Nazis party or fascist movements just damages your credibility. Still waiting for the Merton and Day references, or do you need the 30 days to bone up on something you never actually read?
What's more, the Constitution explicitly assumes that felons may be barred from voting. The 14th Amendment — which, like the 15th, was passed during Reconstruction to ensure equal treatment of African Americans — acknowledges that states can disenfranchise people for "participation in rebellion, or other crime." So an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to bar felon disenfranchisement would not only be inconsistent with the intent of that statute, it would exceed Congress' constitutional authority.
Or look at it this way: When someone is kept from voting because he has been convicted of a felony, this does not "result in a denial or abridgement of the right … to vote on account of race or color" (to quote the law); it results in the denial of the right to vote because that person has chosen to commit a serious crime against a fellow citizen.
Finally, even when civil rights laws are used to challenge practices that are not racially discriminatory in their terms, application or intent but simply because they have disproportionate racial effects, the defendant always has an opportunity to show that the practice is still justified. So, for example, requiring English fluency for a particular job may be permissible, even if it disproportionately excludes members of a racial or ethnic group.
Likewise, a state may have strong and legitimate reasons for limiting the right to vote, even though it may have a disproportionate effect. Allowing only citizens to vote may have a disproportionate effect on groups that include many recent immigrants, but that is surely permissible. And the state also has good reasons for denying the vote to those who have committed serious crimes.
We don't let everyone vote — not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don't meet those standards. If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't demand a role in making the law.
Finally, are you capable of arguing without resorting to incendiary histrionics. Quite frankly, the wild-eyed comparisons of the GOP to the Nazis party or fascist movements just damages your credibility. Still waiting for the Merton and Day references, or do you need the 30 days to bone up on something you never actually read?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Can anyone cite any government source who listed ANY evidence of Russian hacking? Just because Obama and Hillary say it doesn't make it true. Not saying they aren't responsible but no evidence has been released.
Hillary keeps saying 17 intelligence agencies have agreed. Really? One of the 17 intelligence agencies is the Coast Guard. Does anyone think they would wade into this mess?
Hillary keeps saying 17 intelligence agencies have agreed. Really? One of the 17 intelligence agencies is the Coast Guard. Does anyone think they would wade into this mess?
(1)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
Maj (Join to see) - I've been saying the same thing. No quotes from the CIA and no presentation to the American people by the President. Yet they say they are going to retaliate...........I'm sorry who is running the Military show now? I always thought this stuff needed some approval by the Electorate, especially before we escalate it????? Since we are the ones suffering here directly and the conflict is not off and away in some foreign country????
(1)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - Yeah, more BS, this is on the news constantly and we are being attacked as a civilian populace here in CONUS........this is not some foreign military intervention here. The notion the President can keep cyber attacking other countries without laying out for the American electorate what the risks are and how long he expects this to go on.......is crap. He needs to come clean and Address the American people on this on past attacks, who we KNOW did them and what level of response is considered porportionate.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
The difference between cases is General Petreaus was honest and admitted to lying to the FBI and is not a trained lawyer. Hillary is pretending, there is no guilt, it is all confusion, and she didn't know better and is a trained lawyer. So that's why one is getting charged vs the other at the root cause. Its a huge difference in defense approach to charges.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google