The Sexual Predator Is Now Launching an Investigation into Voter Fraud..

The White House on Thursday made public a trove of emails it received from voters offering comment on its Election Integrity Commission. The commission drew widespread criticism when it emerged into public view by asking for personal information, including addresses, partial social security numbers and party affiliation, on every voter in the country.

It further outraged voters by planning to post that information publicly.

Voters directed that outrage toward the Trump White House and the voter commission, often using profanity-laced language in the 112 pages of emails released this week.

“You will open up the entire voting population to a massive amount of fraud if this data is in any way released,” one voter wrote.

“Many people will get their identity stolen, which will harm the economy,” wrote another.

“I respectfully request, as an American-born citizen legally eligible to vote for two decades, that you leave my voter data and history alone, do not publish it, and do nothing with it,” said another.

Unfortunately for these voters and others who wrote in, the Trump administration did not redact any of their personal information from the emails before releasing them to the public. In some cases, the emails contain not only names, but email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and places of employment of people worried about such information being made available to the public.

The Washington Post is not publishing any of this information because it does not appear that the individuals were aware their comments would be shared by the White House. The emails were sent to the Election Integrity Commissions' email address that the administration asked U.S. secretaries of state to send data files to.

Every state in the union was sent a letter last week seeking data from its voter rolls — including names, addresses, dates of birth, political party affiliation and the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers. The request came from Kris Kobach, vice chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. States have responded in a variety of ways: About 20 have agreed to send publicly available data, including Kansas, where Kobach is secretary of state. Other states have said the commission can only have that data if they buy it. A few — including California and Mississippi — have said they won’t be complying with the request at all.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-is-facing-a-tough-data-challenge/?ex_cid=538twitter

Craftier liberals have inched away from the baseless “Vote fraud = Loch Ness Monster” argument. Now, some claim, vote fraud is not “widespread.”

As MSNBC host Katy Tur recently soothed her viewers: “Nobody has found any widespread instances of voter fraud.” Well, Katy, how widespread must vote fraud be before Democrats and their defenders agree that, at least, it should be investigated?

LooseGoose wrote:The vote fraud that Democrats refuse to see

Craftier liberals have inched away from the baseless “Vote fraud = Loch Ness Monster” argument. Now, some claim, vote fraud is not “widespread.”

As MSNBC host Katy Tur recently soothed her viewers: “Nobody has found any widespread instances of voter fraud.” Well, Katy, how widespread must vote fraud be before Democrats and their defenders agree that, at least, it should be investigated?

 The Heritage Foundation’s non-exhaustive survey confirms, since 2000, at least 742 criminal vote-fraud convictions.

At the inaugural meeting of President Trump's election integrity commission on Wednesday, commission Vice-Chairman Kris Kobach of Kansas praised a data collection program run by his state as a model for a national effort to root out voter fraud.

States participating in the program, known as the Interstate Crosscheck System, send their voter registration files to Kansas. Kansas election authorities compare these files to those from other states. Each participating state receives back a list of their voter registrations that match the first name, last name and date of birth of a voter in another state. States may act upon the findings as they wish, although Crosscheck provides some guidelines for purging voter registrations from the rolls.

In theory, the program is supposed to detect possible cases of people voting in multiple locations. But academics and states that use the program have found that its results are overrun with false positives, creating a high risk of disenfranchising legal voters. A statistical analysis of the program published earlier this year by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and Microsoft, for instance, found that Crosscheck “would eliminate about 200 registrations used to cast legitimate votes for every one registration used to cast a double vote.”

Rasmussen Reports‏Verified account @Rasmussen_Poll 17m17 minutes ago
More
Most #Republicans (71%) see #voterfraud as serious problem, compared to 44% of #Democrats and 48% of unaffiliateds. http://bit.ly/2usserb

LooseGoose wrote:

Rasmussen Reports‏Verified account @Rasmussen_Poll 17m17 minutes ago
More
Most #Republicans (71%) see #voterfraud as serious problem, compared to 44% of #Democrats and 48% of unaffiliateds. http://bit.ly/2usserb

and 1% of Swill members......yep this place is right in line with America.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:


and 1% of Swill members......yep this place is right in line with America.

Is this where you pretend to be nonpartisan and objective but exclusively cite Newsbusters?

The fight pits Eric C. Bauman, a longtime party leader, against Kimberly Ellis, a Bay Area activist. Mr. Bauman won the election by just over 60 votes out of 3,000 cast at the party convention in May, but Ms. Ellis has refused to concede, claiming voting improprieties, like permitting ineligible people to vote for Mr. Bauman.

The party is expected to issue a final ruling on Ms. Ellis’s allegations by Aug. 20; in an interview, she said she would go to court if the party ruled against her. This has left Mr. Bauman, who encountered a barrage of shouts of “not my chairman” when he delivered his victory speech, struggling to put behind him a contest that has been the subject of recounts even as he seeks to position Democrats for a challenging congressional election in 2018.

My only concern is it's a red herring and a GOP plan to decimate registered voters in precincts that aren't regularly voting for GOP candidates

GRR Spartan wrote:The last public official convicted of voter fraud?

IN Sec of State Charlie White (R) way back in 2012.

InTenSity wrote:

My only concern is it's a red herring and a GOP plan to decimate registered voters in precincts that aren't regularly voting for GOP candidates

There was the poll that came out today that 52% or so of republicans polled would support a postponing of an election if Trump called for it. If it was done to make sure that everyone voting is valid, or something like that.

InTenSity wrote:

My only concern is it's a red herring and a GOP plan to decimate registered voters in precincts that aren't regularly voting for GOP candidates

There was the poll that came out today that 52% or so of republicans polled would support a postponing of an election if Trump called for it. If it was done to make sure that everyone voting is valid, or something like that.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Is this where you pretend to be nonpartisan and objective but exclusively cite Newsbusters?

lol.....Strange after reading this you could call Dems hypocrites.

Byron York‏Verified account @ByronYork 6m6 minutes ago
More
Read @adamnagourney on rift in CA Dem Party. Accusations of voter fraud in leadership race; calls for photo ID. http://ow.ly/QExM30ejFqs

The fight pits Eric C. Bauman, a longtime party leader, against Kimberly Ellis, a Bay Area activist. Mr. Bauman won the election by just over 60 votes out of 3,000 cast at the party convention in May, but Ms. Ellis has refused to concede, claiming voting improprieties, like permitting ineligible people to vote for Mr. Bauman.

The party is expected to issue a final ruling on Ms. Ellis’s allegations by Aug. 20; in an interview, she said she would go to court if the party ruled against her. This has left Mr. Bauman, who encountered a barrage of shouts of “not my chairman” when he delivered his victory speech, struggling to put behind him a contest that has been the subject of recounts even as he seeks to position Democrats for a challenging congressional election in 2018.

Golly Gee.....photo ID and ineligible voters in their elections.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

lol.....Strange after reading this you could call Dems hypocrites.

Byron York‏Verified account @ByronYork 6m6 minutes ago
More
Read @adamnagourney on rift in CA Dem Party. Accusations of voter fraud in leadership race; calls for photo ID. http://ow.ly/QExM30ejFqs





Golly Gee.....photo ID and ineligible voters in their elections.

Should you be calling other people hypocrites?

InTenSity wrote:

My only concern is it's a red herring and a GOP plan to decimate registered voters in precincts that aren't regularly voting for GOP candidates

There was the poll that came out today that 52% or so of republicans polled would support a postponing of an election if Trump called for it. If it was done to make sure that everyone voting is valid, or something like that.

A strong majority of Democrats would cancel the 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if it meant President Obama could serve another term, a new poll found.

Data provided to The Hill by the conservative polling outlet WPA Research found that 67 percent of Democrats would take a third term for Obama over a potential Clinton administration.

Only 28 percent said they’re ready to move on from the Obama White House, while 6 percent are undecided.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:voter ID laws are racist and meant to disenfranchising voters.

sorry that your guy lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes to a woman.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Should you be calling other people hypocrites?

Yes.  Now tell me more about how Dems don't want Photo ID since it disenfranchises voters.

Or once again build a strawman....or throw a swerve.   Anything to distract from the point.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Yes.  Now tell me more about how Dems don't want Photo ID since it disenfranchises voters.

Or once again build a strawman....or throw a swerve.   Anything to distract from the point.

1) The article is about an election for a leadership position in the California Democratic Party. It is not about an election open to the electorate at-large. This is "closed ranks" election. It seems disingenuous to pretend it is anymore more than that.

2) Improprieties have been suggested but not established. All of these claims seem inconsequential since this was an election for a party leadership position among party members at the California Democratic Party's state convention.

3) The article does not mention voter ID. Where does the article say the California Democratic Party is calling for a voter ID law? The only reference to voter ID is in the complaint linked in the article, which A) comes from the loser of the election, and is therefore not representative of the California Democratic Party, and B)  has to do with voting at a statewide convention.

4) The real strawman is your attempt to misrepresent the article by extending it beyond its scope in hopes of scoring a point on an Internet message board.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

1) The article is about an election for a leadership position in the California Democratic Party. It is not about an election open to the electorate at-large. This is "closed ranks" election. It seems disingenuous to pretend it is anymore more than that.

2) Improprieties have been suggested but not established. All of these claims seem inconsequential since this was an election for a party leadership position among party members at the California Democratic Party's state convention.

3) The article does not mention voter ID. Where does the article say the California Democratic Party is calling for a voter ID law? The only reference to voter ID is in the complaint linked in the article, which A) comes from the loser of the election, and is therefore not representative of the California Democratic Party, and B)  has to do with voting at a statewide convention.

4) The real strawman is your attempt to misrepresent the article by extending it beyond its scope in hopes of scoring a point on an Internet message board.

Whatever you say love.   Should I link you to the numerous articles detailing the DNC requiring photo ID?   The Union elections requiring the same?   You know, those same unions that support Dems and fight against voter in other elections.   Strange that they require that kind of verification in THEIR elections but not in a Presidential election.

Please make your argument that the DNC doesn't represent Dems here:

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Whatever you say love.   Should I link you to the numerous articles detailing the DNC requiring photo ID?   The Union elections requiring the same?   You know, those same unions that support Dems and fight against voter in other elections.   Strange that they require that kind of verification in THEIR elections but not in a Presidential election.

Please make your argument that the DNC doesn't represent Dems here:

Haha. No ability to take up my points because once again, Loose sees a tweet that tickles his insides and runs to tSwill to post without reading anything. #lazy #triggered

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Haha. No ability to take up my points because once again, Loose sees a tweet that tickles his insides and runs to tSwill to post without reading anything. #lazy #triggered

That was my first thought. goose says the ball is lopsided, you go point by point proving it's round. It's very clear it's round. Goose picks up ball and says "yep, lopsided ".

LooseGoose wrote:

Rasmussen Reports‏Verified account @Rasmussen_Poll 17m17 minutes ago
More
Most #Republicans (71%) see #voterfraud as serious problem, compared to 44% of #Democrats and 48% of unaffiliateds. http://bit.ly/2usserb

and 1% of Swill members......yep this place is right in line with America.

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing how many topics can be discussed here to avoid talking about the hypocrites wanting photo ID to vote.  

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing how many topics can be discussed here to avoid talking about the hypocrites wanting photo ID to vote.

Turtleneck wrote:I wanted to bump this one, too. I am still totally freaked out by the 581 cases of fraud over 20 years in local, state, and federal elections.

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:I wanted to bump this one, too. I am still totally freaked out by the 581 cases of fraud over 20 years in local, state, and federal elections.

It's an epidemic!

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing how many topics can be discussed here to avoid talking about the hypocrites wanting photo ID to vote.