The policy and politics of Trumpism

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Can the royal you prove that illegals aren't voting? How would you know one way or the other? They are here by the millions and collect assorted benefits (healthcare, tuition breaks, etc.) already. There seems to be little to no barrier to voting in some states. So, why wouldn't one vote for a political party that promises all sorts of goodies for one's fellow illegals? The incentive is to vote illegally. I've certainly seen advocacy groups around here encourage this activity.

If you can show me where a citizen showed up at the polls and was denied the chance to vote, I'd condemn it. But, I don't see that happening. The fact is the DNC wants illegals to vote because the illegals will vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Multiple studies have found no evidence of any appreciable voter fraud. Since you're the one arguing for this change, the burden of proof falls to you.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,414
331
93
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Multiple studies have found no evidence of any appreciable voter fraud. Since you're the one arguing for this change, the burden of proof falls to you.
Nope. Multiple studies can show anything anyone wants to show, particularly when politics are involved. People have to show an ID for many things on a regular basis. You honestly believe that illegals in states that don't require ID refrain from voting? That's not logical.
 

sabanball

All-American
Jan 4, 2006
2,337
0
46
51
High Cotton
So just to recap, it is to be believed that a foreign country allegedly influenced an election through social media propaganda although no evidence of actual vote tampering has been provided yet illegal non citizen resident immigrants here in this country did absolutely nothing to affect the vote total even though the cities/states reporting high democratic/popular vote totals don't require voter ids or enforce current immigration laws.

Seems legit
 
Last edited:

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,341
32
58
Shiner, TX
It's important to understand the difference between the conflict of interest statutes and the emoluments clause of the Constitution. This suit is not based on the conflict of interest statutes, which exempt the President. Here is the exact language: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

An "emolument" is basically defined as basically any financial benefit. The suit is based upon the fact that there are funds flowing from foreign governments to businesses owned by Trump. There was a long discussion on this before, but the only remedy for a violation of the clause by the POTUS is impeachment, which isn't likely with a Republican-controlled Congress. This would only happen if, as happened with Nixon, a sufficient number of Republican legislators were repulsed enough by his conduct to vote to impeach, and then to convict. I don't think this suit will go anywhere because, first, the court as presently constituted is evenly divided and would be unlikely to take up the question, even if it weren't, probably pointing out that there is a remedy in the Constitution. Even if it did render an opinion that he was in violation, then what? Once again, enforcement is the issue. As in Jackson's remark when the court found that Georgians had violated treaties with the Cherokees - "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Edit: I see the WaPo article explains a good bit of what I've just posted...
I swear. Sometimes I think you're a lawyer...;)
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
19,191
2,123
173
Birmingham & Atlanta
Nope. Multiple studies can show anything anyone wants to show, particularly when politics are involved. People have to show an ID for many things on a regular basis. You honestly believe that illegals in states that don't require ID refrain from voting? That's not logical.
You forgot to add #alternativefacts
 

tattooguy21

All-American
Aug 14, 2012
3,285
13
48
So just to recap, it is to be believed that a foreign country allegedly influenced an election through social media propaganda although no evidence of actual vote tampering has been provided yet illegal non citizen resident immigrants here in this country did absolutely nothing to affect the vote total even though the cities/states reporting high democratic/popular vote totals don't require voter ids or enforce current immigration laws.

Seems legit
it is confusing. the fact is, russia beat the US at their own game (that game is attempting to manipulate elections either through funding, subversion, propaganda, or other means).

i double dog dare anyone to disagree with me regarding the fact that we do the EXACT same thing.
 

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,373
1,492
173
Breaux Bridge, La
So, you cross over into the country illegally by the millions...
And you collect billions in benefits, also illegally

But there is zero chance that even 1:20 would vote illegally?

15-20 million....at 5%.... would be 750,000-1,000,000 illegal votes....

With only 5% participating
 

sabanball

All-American
Jan 4, 2006
2,337
0
46
51
High Cotton
Black swans don't exist, Dewey defeats Truman, and in the history of 56 US Presidential elections no illegal immigrant has ever voted.

Got it
 
Last edited:

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
9,502
2,021
173
Titus, AL
Black swans don't exist, Dewey defeats Truman, and in the history of 56 US Presidential elections no illegal immigrant has ever voted.

Got it
I'm inclined to agree with you to a point but the flip side is all the proof that should have been uncovered of all these illegals voting during that time.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Aug 15, 2004
25,301
1,849
223
44
Where ever there's BBQ, Crawfish & Football
Regarding the argument about the "inconvenience" or "inability" of the poor or elderly to have transportation to go get a voter ID card. How did these people get their names on the insurance roles when Obamacare was enacted? Specifically the ones who were uninsured before? Did people make house calls, go to their homes and "sign them up"? Or was the burden on them to go to designated offices and get enrolled?
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.