"Lazy" is the kind word for people who continually repeat things without even the most basic fact checking.
If you repeat it enough it becomes the truth(or at least many believe it to be so)
"Lazy" is the kind word for people who continually repeat things without even the most basic fact checking.
If you repeat it enough it becomes the truth(or at least many believe it to be so)
Lazy indeed."Lazy" is the kind word for people who continually repeat things without even the most basic fact checking.
In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
yes, that article is a fine example of laziness among other things.Lazy indeed.
Jesse T. Richmana, Gulshan A. Chatthab, David C. Earnest, "Do Non-citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?" Electoral Studies, December 2014, 149–157.
He at least made the effort to link a widely discredited paper that does not support the attempted claim. In that sense, it's probably more dishonest than lazy.yes, that article is a fine example of laziness among other things.
when i googled the article, the first result that came up was judicial watch, which sort of points to bothHe at least made the effort to link a widely discredited paper that does not support the attempted claim. In that sense, it's probably more dishonest than lazy.
and even those guys don't believe this nonsense, even using their incorrect methodology Trump's claims are garbageLazy indeed.
Jesse T. Richmana, Gulshan A. Chatthab, David C. Earnest, "Do Non-citizens Vote in U.S. Elections?" Electoral Studies, December 2014, 149–157.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-sticks-with-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/Even if we assume the Richman and Earnest study is correct, Richman told us that it does not back Trump’s claim that noncitizen voting swung the popular vote in favor of Clinton.
Richman told us via email that he ran some extrapolations from his paper to determine the number of noncitizen voters for Clinton and Trump. He assumed that 6.5 percent of noncitizens voted and 80 percent of them voted for Clinton and 20 percent for Trump.
“If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clinton’s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have,” Richman said, adding that “6.5 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the U.S. would add only 790,688.5 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin. Yes,” Richman said. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”
It isn’t even possible if you assume more than 80 percent of the noncitizen vote went for Clinton, he said.
“If the percentage of non-citizens voting for Clinton is held constant, roughly 18.5 percent of non-citizens would have had to vote for their votes to have made up the entire Clinton popular vote margin. I don’t think that this rate is at all plausible,” Richman told us. “Even if we assume that 90 percent voted for Clinton and only 10 percent for Trump, a more than fourteen percent turnout would be necessary to account for Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is much higher than the estimates we offered. Again, it seems too high to be plausible.”
So again, Trump’s claim is based on a disputed survey. But even if one accepts the results, the author says it is implausible to conclude based on their research that illegal noncitizen voting could have turned the popular vote in Clinton’s favor.
I never said I agree with Trumps allegations that the scale of illegal immigrant voting. I am not sure how widespread the practice is.and even those guys don't believe this nonsense, even using their incorrect methodology Trump's claims are garbage
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-sticks-with-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/
Even though I'm not one of your " left wing-nuts", I'll answer your question:I never said I agree with Trumps allegations that the scale of illegal immigrant voting. I am not sure how widespread the practice is.
Let me ask the left wing-nuts an honest question. When it comes to illegal immigrant voting in the US do you:
(a) believe it does not happen at all.
(b) believe it happens to a very small/negligible extent, but if it was widespread you would disapprove.
(c) believe it is widespread, but have no problem if illegal immigrants vote in US elections. Every resident of the United States, regardless of their immigration status should be allowed to vote.
Ditto. Except I prefer the term LibTard!:biggrin: May be a trap Bamaro!Even though I'm not one of your " left wing-nuts", I'll answer your question:
b
This.since it was addressed to me I'd go with b as well and add that I am certain shenanigans exist within voting and I'm sure that both sides are actively involved and that it is likely that both sides end up countering one another for the most part.
At my precinct in South Texas we had some liitle old blue haired ladies that examined your drivers license like a Nazi check point guard,I appreciate the candor.
I just read things like this (Should we let non-citizens vote? Here’s the case for it: Larry Wilson) and I just do not have much trouble imagining some registrars or poll-watchers saying to themselves, "You know what, it is racist to deny non-US citizens the vote, just because of where they were born or their immigration status. I'm not going to let the racists win. This is just like Rosa Parks," etc. etc. and allowing non-citizens to register and then vote. That just does not strike me a far-fetched.
I hope y'all are correct.
The same where I vote.At my precinct in South Texas we had some liitle old blue haired ladies that examined your drivers license like a Nazi check point guard,
I was glad to see it.
Same here, our county a little over 100,000 voted,Trump won by a little over 1,600.The same where I vote.
I guess the key thing is that, even though the district leans heavily Republican, there is a viable Democrat party. Any shenanigans would get pointed out.
If there were no opposition party, I have to wonder if people would try to get away with something.
Yes, but it's illegal for illegal immigrants to be in the US as well, yet that seems to happen quite commonly.It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in Federal elections.
Yes, you read that right, in May 2015, a majority of Democrats favored allowing illegal immigrants to vote. This despite the fact that merely registering to vote is a felony.Republicans (80%) and voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties (70%) are even more opposed to illegal immigrants voting than there were last year. But now most Democrats agree. Last May (2015), Democrats by a 53% to 42% margin were in favor of allowing tax-paying illegal immigrants to vote. Now, those numbers are reversed, with voters in President Obama’s party opposed by a 52% to 39% margin.
Exactly, I don't think Hillery has even visited Selma. :smile:i believe you are going to go to your grave thinking hillary peed in your corn flakes