Over Three Million Illegal Immigrants Voted in 2016 Election

[helmuth_hubener]

Three Million Votes Were Cast By Illegal Aliens

Millions of votes were cast by illegal aliens in the recent 2016 election held in the United States. Since they are held to determine the government of the United States, participation in these elections has traditionally been limited to citizens of the United States. However, many commentators and human rights advocacy groups see this policy as unfair and racist, and they have increasingly spoken up for a change.

This year, preliminary tallies show that over three million votes were cast by illegal aliens. The vast majority of these votes were for Hillary Clinton.

-- www.votefraud.org

-- http://yournewswire.com/election-fraud-three-million-illegal-aliens/

[Zippyjuan]

Link jumps me to a different site which does not include any evidence to support the claim.

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/iBmIEVN.jpg

[silverhandorder]

Hopefully after Trump is done they will be mostly behind the wall.

[Zippyjuan]

We will all be behind his wall if it is actually built.

[PierzStyx]

First link isn't even relevant.

Second link doesn't even want to work.


But the larger issue is simple: So what?

Isn't the whole point of voting that those who are taxed and subject to a government's rules have some say in the government that rules over them? That is the foundation of the American government right, that no government can justly rule without the consent of the governed i.e. those subject to the edicts of the state?

"Immigrants illegally in the U.S. collectively contribute nearly $12 billion each year to state and local tax coffers, according to a new report that challenges recent election cycle rhetoric. ...The Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy's study found that individuals lacking legal permission to be in the U.S. consistently receive lower wages than their immigrant counterparts who are in the country legally, which inherently limits how much they pay in terms of income taxes. The report estimates the average income of an "undocumented family" is a little more than $30,000, well below the country's median household income of around $54,000, according to the Census Bureau.

However, when looking at the share of total income paid in taxes, the institute's report estimates the average tax rate for immigrants in the country illegally is higher than the rate paid by America's top earners.

"Undocumented immigrants' nationwide average effective tax rate is an estimated 8 percent," the report said. 'To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay an average nationwide effective tax rate of just 5.4 percent.'"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

So you can't say illegal immigrants don't pay taxes- they probably pay as much, if not more, than you because they cannot claim the legal tax breaks you or I can.


And they are certainly subject to the same inane rules you and I are, moreso actually since their labor, and thus humanity, is deemed illegal and cannot legally take place above table. They can legally have everything they own seized from them, including their very children, and be exiled from the country and their property merely on the whim of others.

If you actually believe in the why of voting, if you believe people deserve a voice in their government, if you believe all that stuff the Founding Fathers said about all men being created equal with inalienable rights and about government being by the consent of the governed, there is no logical or moral reason you can oppose illegal immigrants voting. Indeed, immigrants could freely enter into the country and vote for nearly the first 100 years of America's history. This idea of "illegal" people being shut out from having a voice in business and government is the very opposite of the humanistic Enlightenment ideals that the country was founded upon. It is, in retrospect, un-American.

[UWDude]

So, how about we just let the whole world vote via absentee ballot? They can just come here on vacation, claim citizenship, and viola.

[alucard13mm]

In California.. you do not need any ID at all. You just need an address and/or name. Seriously, I can vote in different polling stations under different aliases and I would not be bothered. It is dumb and retarded as hell.

[phill4paul]

Hopefully after Trump is done they will be mostly behind the wall.


We will all be behind his wall if it is actually built.

Palpable hit.

[Zippyjuan]

In California.. you do not need any ID at all. You just need an address and/or name. Seriously, I can vote in different polling stations under different aliases and I would not be bothered. It is dumb and retarded as hell.

You first need to register and get approved the valid name and address which is checked by the Registrar's office or know the name and address of somebody in that precinct who is registered and is not going to vote. You can't just walk in and be given a ballot making up a name.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php


California Voter Registration Eligibility

In order to be eligible to vote in the state of California, you must be:

A citizen of the United States.

A California resident.

18 years old or older on Election Day.

Not currently in prison or on parole for a felony conviction.

Some citizens serving certain legal sentences can vote, and those with felony convictions who've had their civil rights restored can vote (voting rights are automatically restored once parole is completed). Refer to the state's section on voting rights with criminal convictions for details specific to your situation.

Not found to be mentally incompetent by a court.

Register to Vote in California

If you're looking to register to vote in California, and you meet the requirements mentioned above, you'll need to complete a voter application and submit it either online or by mail. You can also register to vote when visiting a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a California driver's license or register your vehicle.

The deadline to register is by 11:59:59 p.m. on the 15th day before the Election Day in question. If you fail to meet that deadline, your information will still be processed, but you'll need to wait to vote in the next upcoming election.

NOTE: Once your information has been submitted for registration, it still needs to be approved by your local election official. This official will contact you once your CA voter registration has been approved, or if they need more information from you.

Online Registration
If you would like to register online, you can submit an application by using the California Online Voter Registration website.

You'll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:

Your CA driver's license or ID number.

Your Social Security number.

Your birth date.

The system will check with the California DMV to ensure that your signature is on file. If it is, it will be added to your registration and you may submit it at the end of the process.

If your signature is NOT on file, your information will be sent to your local county elections board. Print the information you filled out online, sign the application, and mail it to the address specified on the form. An official will contact you once they've received all of your information.

Register by Mail

If you prefer to register to vote by mail, you can:

Print the National Mail Voter Registration Form online.

Pick a registration form up at your local DMV office or county elections office.

Request one by calling the voter hotline at (800) 345-8683.

You can also pick up a voter registration application at post offices, public libraries, and other government offices.

When you complete your application, mail it to the address provided on the application. You will need to provide your California driver's license or identification card number or the last 4 digits of your social security number. If you do not have any of these numbers leave the field blank and the election officials will assign you a voter identification number.

[Danke]

TRUMP: I WON POPULAR VOTE IF ILLEGAL VOTERS EXCLUDED

Why the Electoral College is necessary

Kit Daniels (http://www.infowars.com/author/kit-daniels/) | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 27, 2016


It’s been well-documented that illegals have voted in elections (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/), and it’s also quite possible the establishment attempted to rig the election for Hillary Clinton, but they couldn’t overcome a landslide for Trump

http://www.infowars.com/trump-i-won-popular-vote-if-illegal-voters-excluded/

[Jamesiv1]

You first need to register and get approved the valid name and address which is checked by the Registrar's office or know the name and address of somebody in that precinct who is registered and is not going to vote. You can't just walk in and be given a ballot making up a name.

http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php
All you needed at my polling place was a utility bill.

[Zippyjuan]

To register?

[Jamesiv1]

To register?
to vote.

[Weston White]

Illegals can file for refunds, using either their fake SSN/ID info or filing for a TIN:


Q: Does the IRS pay billions in tax refunds to workers who are in the U.S. illegally?

A: Yes. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General determined that $4.2 billion was paid in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2005. Leading Democrats are resisting a bill that would stop future payments.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/


http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/BUSINESS/070412/AP_TaxingImmigrants.gif

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18077009/ns/business-personal_finance/t/illegal-immigrants-filing-taxes-more-ever/#.WD11DtUrIkI

In any case paying taxes and voting are not mutually inclusive. The constitution besets voting requirements.

[PierzStyx]

So, how about we just let the whole world vote via absentee ballot? They can just come here on vacation, claim citizenship, and viola.

As history shows, that isn't what happens. But it sounds good to me. Everyone else should have a say in the country that is murdering their people, invading their homes, and ruining their economies. There probably would be less wars.

[PierzStyx]

All you needed at my polling place was a utility bill.

Good. If you're paying bills then you're certainly paying taxes and living long term in the country.

[AuH20]

We will all be behind his wall if it is actually built.

I'm not going anywhere. This my homeland. I die here.

[AuH20]

So, how about we just let the whole world vote via absentee ballot? They can just come here on vacation, claim citizenship, and viola.

Indirect world government. heh.

[Jamesiv1]

Good. If you're paying bills then you're certainly paying taxes and living long term in the country.
I don't know if paying utilities means you're living "long term"

If you are a city-dweller, you're probably going to want water and electricity - whether you're here for a month or a lifetime.

[Zippyjuan]

I'm not going anywhere. This my homeland. I die here.

Exactly. We will be walled in.

[Zippyjuan]

to vote.

You do need more documentation (which is verified) to be registered to vote. After that is completed and verified, THEN you can use your utility bill as ID to do the actual voting.

[helmuth_hubener]

In California, left-leaning get-out-the-vote groups openly urge non-citizens to vote during election time.

A Pew Research Poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it's against the law.

Does anybody know why?

[helmuth_hubener]

Hillary Clinton's entire supposed popular vote lead can be accounted for by one (1) county: Los Angeles County in California. Los Angeles County contains millions of illegal alien criminals.

They broke the law to come here. Would they break the law to vote?

[Zippyjuan]

How many illegal immigrants have been proven to have actually cast a ballot?

[helmuth_hubener]

How many illegal immigrants have been proven to have actually cast a ballot?

Did you vote?

[Zippyjuan]

Yes. Am I illegal? No.

Congratulations. This survey shows that 100% of voters were legal citizens at the time of the election.

Now you have to ask the remaining 125 million or so who cast ballots.

[helmuth_hubener]

Am I illegal? No.

Prove it.

[Zippyjuan]

I can but won't post things like my birth certificate or passport on the internet.

You posted a claim that three million illegal immigrants voted in the recent election to start this thread. Prove it. The links only made the claim- they didn't provide any evidence or sources.

[helmuth_hubener]

I can

Oh good. We will wait.

[PierzStyx]

I don't know if paying utilities means you're living "long term"

If you are a city-dweller, you're probably going to want water and electricity - whether you're here for a month or a lifetime.

If you're in one place long enough to plan on having utilities in your name that suggests to me that you plan to be in that area for awhile.

[PierzStyx]

They broke the law to come here. Would they break the law to vote?

So? Why do you worship the law? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is unjust.

[PierzStyx]

Indirect world government. heh.

World government, national government, no difference.

[PierzStyx]

I'm not going anywhere. This my homeland. I die here.

Wrong. You don't have a homeland. Especially as an American. Everyone here is the descendants of immigrants.

Even if you had a "homeland" it is just another piece of dirt. Worshiping this dirt above their dirt is irrational. You don't even own it.

[kpitcher]

The votefraud.org is not even trying to be non-biased or fact based.

Their entire basis for the numbers are that trump won 70% of online polls so the actual numbers MUST BE wrong. Gee, if online polls alone could win actual votes Ron Paul would have won.

[RandallFan]

It's an established fact that 10,000 or 100,000 or 500,000 non citizens normally vote in an election; like the Turkish immigrant who shot a bunch of women in Washington a month ago. Whatever the number is. Take multiples of that since the candidate is Trump.

Since Trump wants to deport a few million fat illegal mexicans with multiple ID's & multiple EBT cards; I think its pretty strong speculation that they would take the chance Obama wont catch them or deport them for the minor indiscretion of voting illegaly.

[helmuth_hubener]

So? Why do you worship the law? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is unjust.

I am just presenting the question for realism's sake. Nothing to do with justice, just reality. If these illegal immigrants people are present in this country, they overcame far more difficult barriers to accomplish that than the barriers present to them voting.

If you believe that people are, indeed, capable of illegally immigrating over vast distances and guarded national borders, then it would be silly to believe these same people are not capable of illegally doing something as simple, easy, and indeed encouraged as voting.

[helmuth_hubener]

I can

Hm-hm-hm hm-hm.

Working on it?

[helmuth_hubener]

Wrong. You don't have a homeland. Especially as an American. Everyone here is the descendants of immigrants.

Even if you had a "homeland" it is just another piece of dirt. Worshiping this dirt above their dirt is irrational. You don't even own it.

You're getting more and more bitter, Pierz. It's unbecoming. Settle down. And I'm not saying this to anger you. Seriously, for your own good. I'm giving you good advice.

[Zippyjuan]

A soon as you prove three million illegal immigrants voted in the election.

[H. E. Panqui]

A soon as you prove three million illegal immigrants voted in the election.

:cool:

...cut it out, zippy!!...helmuth's evidence is overwhelming!...glenn beck, sean hannity, ruse limbaugh AND alex jones have all confirmed it....

[helmuth_hubener]

I can

Zippyjuans proven to be legally eligible to vote:

0.

Constituting thus far:

0%

I'll try to keep you guys updated!

[Zippyjuan]

Thank your for proving your claim.

Here is my ID:
http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/OywAAOSwm8VUuUdB/s-l225.jpg

[Danke]

Zippyjuans proven to be legally eligible to vote:

0.

Constituting thus far:

0%

I'll try to keep you guys updated!

You have to post a graph before Zippy will believe it.

[Cutlerzzz]

Only ~40% of hispanic adults vote. For the OPs numbers to be true we would need adult illegal immigrants to vote at roughly the same rate as legal Hispanics. That's seems unlikely.

[TheCount]

It's an established fact that 10,000 or 100,000 or 500,000 non citizens normally vote in an election; like the Turkish immigrant who shot a bunch of women in Washington a month ago. Whatever the number is. Take multiples of that since the candidate is Trump.You seem to have a very strange definition of established fact.

[Danke]

Only ~40% of hispanic adults vote. For the OPs numbers to be true we would need adult illegal immigrants to vote at roughly the same rate as legal Hispanics. That's seems unlikely.

Self disclosure is so reliable, are those white hispanics or non-white ones?

[oyarde]

Wrong. You don't have a homeland. Especially as an American. Everyone here is the descendants of immigrants.

Even if you had a "homeland" it is just another piece of dirt. Worshiping this dirt above their dirt is irrational. You don't even own it.

I have a homeland . I do not worship the dirt but I like it.

[Danke]

I have a homeland . I do not worship the dirt but I like it.

That reminds me BTW. I still have some of your homeland dirt in my suitcase. Shall I sent it along with the Hobby Lobby coupon?

[lilymc]

First link isn't even relevant.

Second link doesn't even want to work.


But the larger issue is simple: So what?

Isn't the whole point of voting that those who are taxed and subject to a government's rules have some say in the government that rules over them? That is the foundation of the American government right, that no government can justly rule without the consent of the governed i.e. those subject to the edicts of the state?

"Immigrants illegally in the U.S. collectively contribute nearly $12 billion each year to state and local tax coffers, according to a new report that challenges recent election cycle rhetoric. ...The Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy's study found that individuals lacking legal permission to be in the U.S. consistently receive lower wages than their immigrant counterparts who are in the country legally, which inherently limits how much they pay in terms of income taxes. The report estimates the average income of an "undocumented family" is a little more than $30,000, well below the country's median household income of around $54,000, according to the Census Bureau.

However, when looking at the share of total income paid in taxes, the institute's report estimates the average tax rate for immigrants in the country illegally is higher than the rate paid by America's top earners.

"Undocumented immigrants' nationwide average effective tax rate is an estimated 8 percent," the report said. 'To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay an average nationwide effective tax rate of just 5.4 percent.'"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

So you can't say illegal immigrants don't pay taxes- they probably pay as much, if not more, than you because they cannot claim the legal tax breaks you or I can.


And they are certainly subject to the same inane rules you and I are, moreso actually since their labor, and thus humanity, is deemed illegal and cannot legally take place above table. They can legally have everything they own seized from them, including their very children, and be exiled from the country and their property merely on the whim of others.

If you actually believe in the why of voting, if you believe people deserve a voice in their government, if you believe all that stuff the Founding Fathers said about all men being created equal with inalienable rights and about government being by the consent of the governed, there is no logical or moral reason you can oppose illegal immigrants voting. Indeed, immigrants could freely enter into the country and vote for nearly the first 100 years of America's history. This idea of "illegal" people being shut out from having a voice in business and government is the very opposite of the humanistic Enlightenment ideals that the country was founded upon. It is, in retrospect, un-American.


World government, national government, no difference.

You sound like a globalist. You and Hillary have something in common.

[oyarde]

That reminds me BTW. I still have some of your homeland dirt in my suitcase. Shall I sent it along with the Hobby Lobby coupon?

I need a Hobby Lobby giftcard , 200 ought to do it . I need some new cases for some Paleo & Archaic artifacts I picked up recently .

[otherone]

That reminds me BTW. I still have some of your homeland dirt in my suitcase. Shall I sent it along with the Hobby Lobby coupon?

...sounds like pedo code.

[Weston White]

A soon as you prove three million illegal immigrants voted in the election.

Doyle BOOM!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/

[helmuth_hubener]

Election Expert: "We now have 4 million... ineligible [illegal] voters on the rolls!"

Ah, well, I like to err on the cautious, conservative side. 3 million, 4 million,... :)

[Weston White]

Election Expert: "We now have 4 million... ineligible [illegal] voters on the rolls!"

Ah, well, I like to err on the cautious, conservative side. 3 million, 4 million,... :)

...And just to clarify these are not all attributed to Mexicans or whatever as several here keep trying to reference:


** Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
** More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
** Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/pew-center-1-8-million-dead-people-voter-rolls-2-75-million-registered-two-states/

[Son_of_Liberty90]

So? Why do you worship the law? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is unjust.

Yea, who needs laws? Also, to hell with nationalities also! We are the global proletariat!

[PierzStyx]

You sound like a globalist. You and Hillary have something in common.

Sure, if you believe Thomas Jefferson or John Locke were globalists. The revolutionary idea that all people are created equal with the same equal rights no matter where they're from is the foundation of the Lockean ideals that are the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. It is also the foundation of the modern idea of liberty.

Isn't it always fascinating how the real promoters of liberty are always accused of being "globalists" by the oppressive nationalists? Liberty is universal.

And there is no difference between world governments or national ones. They're both oppressive regimes. Replacing an oppressive world government with an oppressive national one means nothing. You're still oppressed.

I have little to nothing in common with Clinton. But if you do not recognize the Declaration and universal inalienable human rights then you have more in common with her than you think you do. You're just Progressives with different goals.

[PierzStyx]

Yea, who needs laws? Also, to hell with nationalities also! We are the global proletariat!

Fascinating. I didn't know you were a Communist! Well, my Communist friend, let me explain liberty to you.

You see, I would expect naming themselves after the Sons of Liberty might be familiar with the declaration of Independence which lays down the basic Enlightenment ideals of Liberty.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Notice that. All men. Not Americans, or Frenchmen, or Englishmen, or Anglo-Saxons. All men are equal, with equal rights. Doesn't matter where you are from or where you live or what race you are or what you believe. All men are equal.

Not only are they equal but they all have the same unalienable rights -that is rights that cannot be justly violated nor surrendered-among which are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. If you violate any of these rights then you are unjust, immoral, and unworthy of position or power.

To quote The DoI further:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There is only one law that matters, Natural Law. When Natural Law -the law of equal human rights- is respected by man-made law then that is wonderful. When man-made law violates Natural Law- and thus the natural rights of any person- it is inferior and can and should be nullified, discarded, and abolished.

So yes, who needs laws, indeed? My Communist friend, you may worship oppressive and degrading rules that restrict human liberties, but the true friend of Liberty does not. Indeed it always interests me how so many of your caliber, who proclaim themselves "Son(s) of Liberty" seem to have no grasp on what Liberty actually is or what it actually means for all people to be free and equal. Ignorance is all too common. You worship the law and forget the Law.

[PierzStyx]

Doyle BOOM!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/elections-expert-now-4-million-ineligible-dead-voters-american-voter-rolls-video/

Hmmm. Guy is on Fox News, works for Newsmax, and shows up on Rush Limbaugh's radio network regularly.

When did neoconservatives become sources of good information? Never? Yeah. Never.

[PierzStyx]

You're getting more and more bitter, Pierz. It's unbecoming. Settle down. And I'm not saying this to anger you. Seriously, for your own good. I'm giving you good advice.

Bitter? Perhaps, but only at those who try to pass their nativism, nationalism, and Progressivism off as Liberty. Those kinds of lies are toxic to the cause of Freedom, Justice, Mercy, and Liberty.

[Zippyjuan]

Election Expert: "We now have 4 million... ineligible [illegal] voters on the rolls!"

Ah, well, I like to err on the cautious, conservative side. 3 million, 4 million,... :)

People who have died or moved out of precincts and not had their names removed from voter rolls is not the same as three million illegal immigrants voting. The problem isn't voter fraud- it is outdated voter lists. From the report:


It's titled "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade."

Page one of the 12-page report has several bullet points:

Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

"The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems," the organization wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-third-presidential-trump-pew-report-voter-1476945665-htmlstory.html


Link to the actual report: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

[helmuth_hubener]

Bitter? Perhaps, but only at those who try to pass their nativism, nationalism, and Progressivism off as Liberty. Those kinds of lies are toxic to the cause of Freedom, Justice, Mercy, and Liberty.

Toxic liars like me?

[Swordsmyth]

Toxic liars like me?
PierzStyx is having fun wasting your time, he is the one who doesn't belong here, being an Anarcho-Globalist.
I suggest you just ignore him.
I wish this site had an Ignore this user button.

[helmuth_hubener]

not the same as three million illegal immigrants voting.

How many do you think it is, Juan? Five million?

Probably it could be 17 million.

There's 30 to 40,000,000 illegal immigrants in the America currently, right? So if only half of them bother to vote....

And how many much, much more than that voted this time, against the anti-Mexican demagogue who CNN told them called them all rapists? They were energized! Probably many of them even voted more than one time!

[Zippyjuan]

Yes- 17 million out of eleven million illegal immigrants cast ballots in the last election. They had a higher voter turnout than any other group in the whole country.
:rolleyes:

You have still not shown a single one actually casting a ballot (though your claimed numbers keep on rising- maybe next week it will be 30 million illegal immigrants voting- and then 100 million).

[lilymc]

Sure, if you believe Thomas Jefferson or John Locke were globalists. The revolutionary idea that all people are created equal with the same equal rights no matter where they're from is the foundation of the Lockean ideals that are the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. It is also the foundation of the modern idea of liberty.

Isn't it always fascinating how the real promoters of liberty are always accused of being "globalists" by the oppressive nationalists? Liberty is universal.

And there is no difference between world governments or national ones. They're both oppressive regimes. Replacing an oppressive world government with an oppressive national one means nothing. You're still oppressed.

I have little to nothing in common with Clinton. But if you do not recognize the Declaration and universal inalienable human rights then you have more in common with her than you think you do. You're just Progressives with different goals.

I never once argued (or even thought) that all people are not created equal with the same basic human rights. So that's your first straw man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have nations. I thought most of us agree here that government is better when it's more local and closer to the people. Advocating for a world government is insane, even if things weren't as bad as they actually are.... but considering how thoroughly corrupt and evil the 'leaders' of this world are... promoting world government (the NWO) is beyond crazy, it's the stupidest thing one can do.

[Ender]

You sound like a globalist. You and Hillary have something in common.

Actually what PierzStyx is speaking of is Individualism- the exact opposite of globalism.

[lilymc]

Actually what PierzStyx is speaking of is Individualism- the exact opposite of globalism.

He seems to be open to the idea of world government, and as I said, he sounded like a globalist. But I think we should let him speak for himself.

[Ender]

He seems to be open to the idea of world government, and as I said, he sounded like a globalist. But I think we should let him speak for himself.

What I am getting from PierzStyx is that both globalism and nationalism do not equate to personal freedom but to the abolishment of freedom and God-given rights.

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes- 17 million out of eleven million illegal immigrants cast ballots in the last election. They had a higher voter turnout than any other group in the whole country.

I will politely ask you again: How many do you think it is, Juan?

Everyone agrees that many, many illegal immigrants voted in this last election. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees on that. No reasonable, sane person would disagree with that obviously true statement. So what is your best estimate of how many voted?

[Zippyjuan]

"Everyone agrees". Who are everyone? No evidence is presented to show it occurred at all though claims have been made. My best estimate? Less than 1000. Maybe less than 100.

Still waiting on your evidence.

[Zippyjuan]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/11/28/before-trump-tweets-appeals-court-doubted-concerns-about-illegal-immigrant-voting/


Before Trump Tweets, Appeals Court Doubted Concerns About Illegal Immigrant Voting

Speculation that vast numbers of illegal immigrants are on voter rolls isn’t just coming from President-elect Donald Trump’s Twitter account.

A similar concern was aired by Republican Kansas officials in a recent case before skeptical federal appeals court judges weighing a Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration at state DMV offices.

Mr. Trump’s tweeted Sunday that he had won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

No evidence has emerged of widespread voting by illegal immigrants. That lack of evidence has been a major factor weighing against Kansas as it’s sought to defend the proof-of-citizenship mandate.

The American Civil Liberties Union this year sued the state over the law, which requires people registering to vote while applying for a driver’s license to show documentary proof of citizenship. The suit alleged the law was preventing thousands of otherwise qualified Kansas residents “from exercising their fundamental right to vote.”

After a federal judge temporarily barred enforcement of the law, lawyers for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach took the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in a brief:


The threat of noncitizens registering to vote in Kansas is not hypothetical. As explained above, evidence from just one of Kansas’s 105 counties demonstrated that prior to K.S.A. § 25-2309(l) going into effect, eleven noncitizens successfully registered to vote; and after it went into effect another fourteen were prevented from registering. These 25 cases are just the tip of the iceberg in Sedgwick County. And when all 105 counties are considered, the number of aliens on the voter rolls is likely to be in the hundreds, if not thousands.


The appeals court wasn’t convinced of an iceberg lurking beneath those couple-dozen examples and refused to undo the injunction. Wrote 10th Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, a President George W. Bush appointee, in an October-issued opinion:


[W]e reject as based on conjecture Secretary Kobach’s invitation to consider as “just the tip of the iceberg” the twenty-five cases in Sedgwick County of aliens registering or attempting to register. The assertion that the “number of aliens on the voter rolls is likely to be in the hundreds, if not thousands” is pure speculation….

On the other side of the equation is the near certainty that without the preliminary injunction over 18,000 U.S. citizens in Kansas will be disenfranchised for purposes of the 2016 federal elections—elections less than one month away.

Though the Kansas law was blocked leading up to the November election, it hasn’t been struck down for good. In late October, following 10th Circuit orders, U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson of Kansas City allowed the state to take three months to conduct a statistical analysis that would more precisely determine how many noncitizens are on Kansas’s registration rolls.

[helmuth_hubener]

Maybe less than 100.

Behold: a Fantasy-Land Kook.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/?utm_term=.efe747ce0ab3


A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

<snip>
To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.


Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.


Incidents listed at link. None identified as illegal immigrants.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections

24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.

Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132 percent!

No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud.

When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.


In the contested 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election, a Superior Court judge ruled invalid just 25 ballots, constituting 0.0009 percent of the 2,812,675 cast. Many were absentee ballots mailed as double votes or in the names of deceased people, but the judge did not find all were fraudulently cast. When King County prosecutors charged seven defendants, the lawyer for one 83-year old woman said his client “simply did not know what to do with the absentee ballot after her husband of 63 years, Earl, passed away” just before the election, so she signed his name and mailed the ballot.

A leaked report from the Milwaukee Police Department found that data entry errors, typographical errors, procedural missteps, misapplication of the rules, and the like accounted for almost all reported problems during the 2004 presidential election.

When the South Carolina State Election Commission investigated a list of 207 allegedly fraudulent votes in the 2010 election, it found simple human errors in 95 percent of the cases the state’s highest law enforcement official had reported as fraud.

A study by the Northeast Ohio Media Group of 625 reported voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2012 election found that nearly all cases forwarded to county prosecutors were caused by voter confusion or errors by poll workers.

[Zippyjuan]

Behold: a Fantasy-Land Kook.

Thank you for providing more evidence of three (or 17 is it now?) million illegal immigrants voting.

[ifthenwouldi]

We will all be behind his wall if it is actually built.

Now that sounds like Ron Paul.

[helmuth_hubener]

http://i.imgur.com/NjIjKG8.png

[PierzStyx]

I never once argued (or even thought) that all people are not created equal with the same basic human rights. So that's your first straw man. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have nations. I thought most of us agree here that government is better when it's more local and closer to the people. Advocating for a world government is insane, even if things weren't as bad as they actually are.... but considering how thoroughly corrupt and evil the 'leaders' of this world are... promoting world government (the NWO) is beyond crazy, it's the stupidest thing one can do.

Who promoted world government?

In the first post you quoted I laid out the simple facts. If government can only be at the consent of the governed then by what moral logic can you justify keeping immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from voting? Do they not live here? Are they not taxed? Do they not have the same inalienable rights you do to consent to their own government and have a voice in how it rules them?

If you think you can treat people differently based on their immigration status, if you think it right to exercise governmental authority over them and deny them a voice in that government, then you may not be saying you think some people are born with inferior rights to you, but you are saying it with your actions. You are saying that human rights are not universal to all people, but that you have more rights and powers than others, to control them, their property, their labor, and their lives without giving them voice in their government, without giving them their Creator-given right to consent or refuse consent to your rule. So it isn't a Straw Man at all if you believe anyone ruled by the government should be denied the ability to vote in it. Actions speak louder than words.

Though many here will trumpet the logic of the Enlightenment, such arguments such as universal human rights and Natural Law is at odds with the nationalist dogma they hold.

And I'm not a globalist. The reality is that national government or world government, it is all the same. A globalist government, if such a thing is even possible (it never has been), would be no more or less capable of oppressing you than a national government.The distinction is irrelevant ultimately. I'm not advocating for globalist government. I'm saying neither globalist nor nationalist are good. They're both equally bad. Pretending like one is better than the other doesn't make sense. Everything you fear might happen in a globalist state actually exists in the nation-state.

[PierzStyx]

What I am getting from PierzStyx is that both globalism and nationalism do not equate to personal freedom but to the abolishment of freedom and God-given rights.

Double Bingo.

What I am talking about is Individualism. The rights of the individual supersede everything else because it is the individual that matters. Not the State, irregardless of whether it is Nationalist or Globalist. Such a distinction is irrelevant. They both end in subjection.

[PierzStyx]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/?utm_term=.efe747ce0ab3



Incidents listed at link. None identified as illegal immigrants.

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections

That is absolutely delightful. Even delicious. Evidence proving voter fraud is more or less a nativist fantasy.

[PierzStyx]

Now that sounds like Ron Paul.

It was in fact Ron's exact argument!

[PierzStyx]

I am just presenting the question for realism's sake. Nothing to do with justice, just reality. If these illegal immigrants people are present in this country, they overcame far more difficult barriers to accomplish that than the barriers present to them voting.

If you believe that people are, indeed, capable of illegally immigrating over vast distances and guarded national borders, then it would be silly to believe these same people are not capable of illegally doing something as simple, easy, and indeed encouraged as voting.

A rational possibility. But it is only a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? So far Zippy has been kicking your tail in that department.

[helmuth_hubener]

I laid out the simple facts. If government can only be at the consent of the governed then by what moral logic can you justify keeping immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from voting? Do they not live here? Are they not taxed? Do they not have the same inalienable rights you do?

I don't know, Pierz, you seem to have thought this out very thoroughly and philosophically, but as for me, when I'm, say, in Italy for a month or two, I don't feel the need or the right to tell them how to run things. No desire for any input at all.

I do believe I have inalienable rights and all that jazz. I do believe in consent of the governed (and would even add the modifier "unanimous"!). It just seems reasonable to let the long-time Italians decide how to run Italy. Even if I were to permanently relocate there, I'd feel the same way. The ones who have been there for ten, twenty generations, it's their country. They get the say. I wouldn't feel done wrong by in the least if they said "you've got to wait a few generations. We'll let your grand-kids vote." Or even if they said "Sorry, but it's getting crowded here. The traffic's horrible and we're out of cobblestone. You're going to have to leave." Hey, no worries! Thanks for having me while you did and it was a nice stay! That's just how I feel.

Maybe my feelings are wrong. Philosophically wrong or something. But that's how I feel.

[helmuth_hubener]

Where is the evidence?

There's a mountain of evidence, a ton of documented proof, as well as just plain common sense.

[Zippyjuan]

Mountains. Arizona found two whole examples in the last ten years. Now we just need to find the other 1,999,998 more.

http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20131105arizona-immigrant-vote-fraud-rare.html


Illegal immigrant vote-fraud cases rare in Arizona


Arizona has spent enormous amounts of time and money waging war against voter fraud, citing the specter of illegal immigrants’ casting ballots.

State officials from Gov. Jan Brewer to Attorney General Tom Horne to Secretary of State Ken Bennett swear it’s a problem.

At an August news conference, Horne and Bennett cited voter-fraud concerns as justification for continuing a federal-court fight over state voter-ID requirements. And some Republican lawmakers have used the same argument to defend a package of controversial new election laws slated to go before voters in November 2014.

But when state officials are pushed for details, the numbers of actual cases and convictions vary and the descriptions of the alleged fraud become foggy or based on third-hand accounts.

An examination of voter-fraud cases in Maricopa County shows those involving illegal immigrants are nearly non-existent, and have been since before the changes to voter-ID requirements were enacted in 2004.

In response to an Arizona Republic records request, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office provided a list of 21 criminal cases since January 2005 in which the suspect was charged with a felony related to voter fraud. A search of court records found 13 other cases.

Of the 34 Maricopa County cases, two of the suspects were in the country illegally and 12 were not citizens but living in the U.S. legally, court records showed. One of the suspect’s legal-residency status was unclear from the records.

The non-citizens came from around the world — Indonesia, Canada, Mexico, Yugoslavia, the Philippines and Thailand. Most had been living legally in the U.S. for decades. Several stated in court documents that they thought they were permitted to vote because they were legal permanent residents of the United States.

None was convicted of a felony or given any jail time. A couple of the cases were dismissed; the other suspects pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and served a few months of probation.

Eighteen of the cases involved convicted felons who had lost the right to vote. In several of the cases, the felons told the court no one had ever explained to them that they no longer could vote even after serving their time. One said he was sent an early ballot in the mail and thought he was permitted to vote.

[PierzStyx]

I don't know, Pierz, you seem to have thought this out very thoroughly and philosophically, but as for me, when I'm, say, in Italy for a month or two, I don't feel the need or the right to tell them how to run things. No desire for any input at all.

I do believe I have inalienable rights and all that jazz. I do believe in consent of the governed (and would even add the modifier "unanimous"!). It just seems reasonable to let the long-time Italians decide how to run Italy. Even if I were to permanently relocate there, I'd feel the same way. The ones who have been there for ten, twenty generations, it's their country. They get the say. I wouldn't feel done wrong by in the least if they said "you've got to wait a few generations. We'll let your grand-kids vote." Or even if they said "Sorry, but it's getting crowded here. The traffic's horrible and we're out of cobblestone. You're going to have to leave." Hey, no worries! Thanks for having me while you did and it was a nice stay! That's just how I feel.

Maybe my feelings are wrong. Philosophically wrong or something. But that's how I feel.

Staying in Italy a month doesn't make you an immigrant.

It is perfectly fine for you to feel that way and decide to not vote. But that is irrelevant to whether you should be forcing how you feel people should live on anyone else. You have no right to do that.

[PierzStyx]

There's a mountain of evidence, a ton of documented proof, as well as just plain common sense.

I'm literally begging here. Give me some good ones.

[helmuth_hubener]

Staying in Italy a month doesn't make you an immigrant. I specifically said: I'd feel the same way if I stayed a year. Or ten years. Or a lifetime.

It just seems rude and entitlement-mentality to barge into someone else's country and demand things from them.


It is perfectly fine for you to feel that way. Well thank you!


But that is irrelevant to whether you should be forcing how you feel people should live on anyone else. You have no right to do that. I am not forcing anything on anyone, much less forcing them how to live! Wow!

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm literally begging here. Give me some good ones. No time. More important things to work on. You can find it yourself easily enough. :)

[lilymc]

You ignored most of what I said. But I'll respond to a few of your points.



Who promoted world government?

In the first post you quoted I laid out the simple facts. If government can only be at the consent of the governed then by what moral logic can you justify keeping immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from voting? Do they not live here? Are they not taxed? Do they not have the same inalienable rights you do to consent to their own government and have a voice in how it rules them?

We have laws for a reason. That includes immigration laws. If you think we shouldn't have borders, that anyone at all should be allowed to vote in our elections, then you need to first work to change those laws. And you'll probably have to get others on board with your idea, but first work toward changing the damn law.

Until then, you are advocating for law-breaking. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's not fair to the TONS of immigrants who do it the right way - by going through the legal process - to reward those who thumb their nose at our laws and at the other immigrants who do things honestly.

Now you have another thing in common with Hillary. And most lefties, who agree with rewarding those disregard for the law.




If you think you can treat people differently based on their immigration status, if you think it right to exercise governmental authority over them and deny them a voice in that government, then you may not be saying you think some people are born with inferior rights to you, but you are saying it with your actions. You are saying that human rights are not universal to all people, but that you have more rights and powers than others, to control them, their property, their labor, and their lives without giving them voice in their government, without giving them their Creator-given right to consent or refuse consent to your rule. So it isn't a Straw Man at all if you believe anyone ruled by the government should be denied the ability to vote in it. Actions speak louder than words.

Though many here will trumpet the logic of the Enlightenment, such arguments such as universal human rights and Natural Law is at odds with the nationalist dogma they hold.

And I'm not a globalist. The reality is that national government or world government, it is all the same. A globalist government, if such a thing is even possible (it never has been), would be no more or less capable of oppressing you than a national government.The distinction is irrelevant ultimately. I'm not advocating for globalist government. I'm saying neither globalist nor nationalist are good. They're both equally bad. Pretending like one is better than the other doesn't make sense. Everything you fear might happen in a globalist state actually exists in the nation-state.

There's a difference between basic human rights, constitutional rights... and privileges. You are acting as if voting is a basic human right. Is that what you think?

You say you're not a globalist, but the only way your thoughts above work in a practical sense is to have no borders.... one government for all. So you are contradicting yourself.

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

[Natural Citizen]

If you actually believe in the why of voting, if you believe people deserve a voice in their government, if you believe all that stuff the Founding Fathers said about all men being created equal with inalienable rights and about government being by the consent of the governed, there is no logical or moral reason you can oppose illegal immigrants voting. Indeed, immigrants could freely enter into the country and vote for nearly the first 100 years of America's history. This idea of "illegal" people being shut out from having a voice in business and government is the very opposite of the humanistic Enlightenment ideals that the country was founded upon. It is, in retrospect, un-American.

This is likely one of the more intellectually dishonest things I've read in a while. Either that or just ignorance as far as a grasp on history and where the traditional American philosophy of governance is concerned. But I have to get ready to head out the door for a bit. I'll be back later.

[lilymc]

It just seems rude and entitlement-mentality to barge into someone else's country and demand things from them.


Exactly. I wouldn't do it to another country, and we hope they wouldn't do it to us.

But you have lefties who not only don't see anything wrong with that, but actually promote it.

[H. E. Panqui]

...methinks helmuth's 'evidence' :rolleyes: amounts to a bunch of allegations made by stinking radio republicans, etc. republican media cheerleaders...

...gee, i wonder why the stinking republicans don't jump on jill stein's petition to recount...i believe they could 'petition to intervene' and they could submit any/all their 'evidence' :rolleyes: of 'illegal voting'...but no...instead, it seems the stinking republicans for whom helmuth apologizes are behaving in the same fashion as would people guilty of voter fraud...

...imagine that!...republican scumbags, guilty of systematic voter fraud themselves, screaming and pointing their fingers at others...why it's unheard of, helmuth!...;)

[Zippyjuan]

Trump said it was so.

[Danke]

States like California distribute drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, which can lead to illegal voter registrations, Bill O'Reilly reported Wednesday.
Retired ICE Special-Agent-In-Charge Claude Arnold said that there is a very high demand for counterfeit documents like a drivers license because a large swath of the illegal population wants to work.
He said there are often several illicit document vendors in neighborhoods with high illegal immigrant populations.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections?ref=yfp

[lilymc]

States like California distribute drivers licenses to undocumented aliens, which can lead to illegal voter registrations, Bill O'Reilly reported Wednesday.
Retired ICE Special-Agent-In-Charge Claude Arnold said that there is a very high demand for counterfeit documents like a drivers license because a large swath of the illegal population wants to work.
He said there are often several illicit document vendors in neighborhoods with high illegal immigrant populations.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/30/ice-agent-counterfeit-drivers-licenses-illegal-immigration-voters-registration-elections?ref=yfp

Yep. I'm from California, and one time (many years ago) while working a temp job, my social security number was stolen. I found out later that it as being used by someone in Southern California who appeared to be an illegal.

I'll never understand why anyone would think rewarding dishonest/criminal behavior is a good idea. Well, except for people like Hillary, Obama or Nancy Pelosi. I know why they have no problem with illegal immigration/ voting.

[timosman]

Yep. I'm from California, and one time (many years ago) while working a temp job, my social security number was stolen. I found out later that it as being used by someone in Southern California who appeared to be an illegal.

I'll never understand why anyone would think rewarding dishonest/criminal behavior is a good idea. Well, except for people like Hillary, Obama or Nancy Pelosi. I know why they have no problem with illegal immigration/ voting.

Even the legal numbers are not that legal. My brother in law obtained a SS number but he has retired and went back to Mexico. Now me and two(maybe more) other family members are using his SS number. obviously j/k :rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

Even the legal numbers are not that legal. My brother in law obtained a SS number but he has retired and went back to Mexico. Now me and two(maybe more) other family members are using his SS number. obviously j/k :rolleyes:

Hm. So in other words, one Mexican obtains a SS number, works for...oh, I don't know..let's say a landscaper for a couple years. He sends his dollars home and turns them into pesos via western union at three or four times the value, buys what equates to a small mansion down there, then he sends his brothers or cousins to the sates, they all shack up in the same place and they work for the same employer using the same SS number as the other one who went back to mexico, then the new guys repeat the process. Is that what yer saying, timbo? Makes sense.

[timosman]

Hm. So in other words, one Mexican obtains a SS number, works for...oh, I don't know..let's say a landcaper for a couple years. He sends his dollars home and turns them into pesos at three or four times the value, buys what equates to a small mansion down there, then he sends his brothers or cousins to the sates, the yall shack up in the same place and they work for the same employer using the same SS number as the other one who went back to mexico, then the new guys repeat the process. Is that what yer saying, timbo? Makes sense.

It is worse than what you described. The SS number is not tied to an employer. You can show up anywhere and when asked do you have a valid SS number you say YES! a check is run, it checks out and that's it. I have not idea why IRS does not check how many income sources are being reported by a single SS number. :confused:

[Natural Citizen]

It is worse than what you described. The SS number is not tied to an employer. You can show up anywhere and when asked do you have a valid SS number you say YES! a check is run, it checks out and that's it. I have not idea why IRS does not check how many income sources are being reported by a single SS number. :confused:

Yep. I knew that. I just wanted to be clear if that was what you were getting at. My main question is where do they get the SS number. If it's stolen, like lily was saying about hers, then surely it'd be reported stolen. I wonder if they maybe get "borrowed" or reted out. It's gotta be something like that. Snd yeah, that;s a good question about the IRS. Since a alot of the times, it's a coupel family menmbers, I wonder if only one uses it and the other one just stays on the down-lo while on the work site.

[timosman]

Yep. I knew that. I just wanted to be clear if that was what you were getting at. My main question is where do they get the SS number. If it's stolen, like lily was saying about hers, then surely it'd be reported stolen. I wonder if they maybe get "borrowed" or reted out. It's gotta be something like that.

Dude, you are so dense it is sad. The SS number is legal. The person who "owns" it(the number was originally issued to) may or maybe not be in US. Nobody checks for that. Read my original post.

[Natural Citizen]

And alot of times, employers will house them in a group. So that's a way to stay low, too.

[Natural Citizen]

Dude, you are so dense it is sad. The SS number is legal. The person who "owns" it(the number was originally issued to) may or maybe not be in US. Nobody checks for that. Read my original post.

No, that's not the only way it works. Have you ever known of an employer who has done it? I won't say that I have or haven't. But I know what I'm talking about. Yours isn't the only way it's done.

Anyway. I just learned something about you. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[timosman]

No, that's not the only way it works. Have you ever known of an employer who has done it? I won't say that I have or haven't. But I know what I'm talking about. Yours isn't the only way it's done.

Anyway. I just learned something about you. :)

Obviously this is not the only way, it is just an example. You can share your method. :D

[Natural Citizen]

Obviously this is not the only way, it is just an example. You can share your method. :D

Nah, I'm going to bed, man. It's late.

[PierzStyx]

You ignored most of what I said. But I'll respond to a few of your points.

We have laws for a reason. That includes immigration laws. If you think we shouldn't have borders, that anyone at all should be allowed to vote in our elections, then you need to first work to change those laws. And you'll probably have to get others on board with your idea, but first work toward changing the damn law.

Until then, you are advocating for law-breaking. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's not fair to the TONS of immigrants who do it the right way - by going through the legal process - to reward those who thumb their nose at our laws and at the other immigrants who do things honestly.

Now you have another thing in common with Hillary. And most lefties, who agree with rewarding those disregard for the law.




There's a difference between basic human rights, constitutional rights... and privileges. You are acting as if voting is a basic human right. Is that what you think?

You say you're not a globalist, but the only way your thoughts above work in a practical sense is to have no borders.... one government for all. So you are contradicting yourself.

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.

[Natural Citizen]

I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.


You'd do well to educate yourself on what consent actually means in the framework of our Constitututional Republic.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.

Are you one of those "Global Citizens" (https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/g20-refugee-crisis-germany-usa-eu-china/) who are all the rave?

[Natural Citizen]

Come on, Pierz. Talk to me, brother.

[RandallFan]

You seem to have a very strange definition of established fact.

I said "Multiples" I didnt say what the multiple was.

But this idea that 3 million illegals voted is more relevant and semi-truthful as any issue the media has in the top ten.

[lilymc]

I ignored most of what you said because it wasn't relevant.

I can tell that you have little understanding of American history. So I'll start at the beginning.

Do I advocate disobedience to unjust laws? Absolutely. Refusing to obey an unjust law is what is required to maintain human liberty. Think of it as personal nullification. (If you don't know what nullification is, read the writings of Thomas Jefferson.) You are nullifying the unjust laws of nation by refusing to follow them. Edicts that are not obeyed have no power. This is the essence of revolution. When many people nullify unjust laws and a government still insists on enforcing them, that is when rebellions begin. You know, such as the rebellion we call the American Revolution. Law is only good when it respects natural rights. When it does not it must needs be discarded.

When you worship law more than you do liberty, there is tyranny. You described perfectly why America is in such bad shape today, because people like you advocate for and enforce unjust laws on the populace and demand obedience to that which is wrong simply because it is legal. Legality is irrelevant to justice.

If you think that is Left vs. Right thing, then you're a fool. Liberty is a human thing. This idea that you can divide it up along party lines is exactly how they control you.

Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

I'm an advocate for individual human liberty. Call that what you will.

Way too many straw men crammed into one long, condescending post. And you continue to not answer direct questions, so obviously this is not a two-way conversation...you want to talk at me, while ignoring almost everything I say.

The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws. Why not just embrace that you're a globalist, like Obama, Hillary, GW Bush, etc?

I don't have a problem with the concept of global government, in and of itself. But the reality is, it will never work except under God Himself... so advocating for no borders now is playing into the hands of the satanic sociopaths currently running this world, because that is exactly what they want, the New World Order.

So you are not only agreeing with Hillary, Obama, and the Republican neocon globalists, but you are being a useful tool for them, with your anti-borders, "illegals should be allowed to vote" talk, because that's their goal too. Even if its for different reasons.

[CPUd]

Trump's baseless assertions of voter fraud called 'stunning'

Without putting forth any evidence, the president-elect says he actually won the popular vote.



Donald Trump on Sunday used his platform as president-elect to peddle a fringe conspiracy theory to justify his loss of the popular vote, claiming without evidence that millions of people voted illegally Nov. 8.

Trump’s tweets marked an unprecedented rebuke of the U.S. electoral system by a president-elect and met with immediate condemnation from voting experts and others. And they offered a troubling indication that Trump’s ascension to the highest political office in the United States may not alter his penchant for repeating unproven conspiracy theories perpetuated by the far right.

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump wrote on Twitter. There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim and PolitiFact ruled it false.

Several hours later, he added more specifics, but again without any evidence: “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California — so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias — big problem!”

Election law experts quickly rejected Trump’s claims as far-fetched.

“There’s no reason to believe this is true,” said Rick Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California, Irvine. “The level of fraud in U.S. elections is quite low.”

Hasen added, “The problem of noncitizen voting is quite small — like we’re talking claims in the dozens, we’re not talking voting in the millions, or the thousands, or even the hundreds.”

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed that widespread fraud was unlikely.

“We know historically that this almost never happens,” he said. “You’re more likely to get eaten by a shark that simultaneously gets hit by lightning than to find a noncitizen voting.”

A source close to the president-elect said he felt piqued by the Wisconsin recount demand of Green Party nominee Jill Stein, in which Hillary Clinton’s campaign has said it will participate, so he hit back. Even though he’s won and it shouldn’t matter, he isn’t letting it go, the source said.

Another adviser said Trump genuinely believes “that the Democratic establishment will try to steal” his victory. So his goal is to hold their feet to the fire.

The claims of voter fraud appear to have gained traction in conservative circle after Infowars, the conspiracy theory-laden website, published an article on Nov. 14 under the headline, “Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens.”

The story cites an analysis by Gregg Phillips, who claims to be the founder of a voting app named VoteStand and who was previously associated with Newt Gingrich’s Winning Our Future super PAC. Phillips has declined to provide any evidence to PolitiFact or reporters to support his assertions of fraud. But he tweeted Sunday evening that he would “release a comprehensive research study to the public, Attorney General [nominee Jeff] Sessions and all interested parties.”

Radio host Alex Jones, who runs Infowars, has faced criticism for promoting unsubstantiated — and often bizarre — conspiracy theories, including that the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which resulted in the death of 20 children, is a hoax, and that Hillary Clinton is a “demon from Hell.”

Trump called Jones just days after the election to thank him for his support.

It’s not insignificant that Trump’s tweet also successfully shifted the media narrative away from negative stories about Trump’s many conflicts of interest. The New York Times published a front-page investigation into the conflicts on Sunday.

The president-elect has a long history of pushing debunked conspiracy theories, including the false claim that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States and that the presidential election would be “rigged” by global elites to assure Hillary Clinton’s victory.

Hillary Clinton now leads the popular vote by about 2.2 million votes, though Trump won the Electoral College by beating Clinton in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin.

Trump said Sunday on Twitter that he could have won the popular vote.

“It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 ... states instead of the 15 states that I visited. I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!” he wrote.

To bolster his claims, Trump has cited a 2014 blog post in The Washington Post by the authors of a disputed study that estimated that “6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.” That study has faced intense scrutiny from election experts, with one analyst telling factcheck.org earlier this year, “Their finding is entirely due to measurement error."

Trump’s critics have argued that Clinton's popular vote victory raises questions about whether Trump has a solid mandate to govern.

Trump took to Twitter earlier Sunday, before making assertions of voter fraud, to bash the Clinton campaign’s decision to participate in the Green Party’s call for a recount. “The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated & demoralized Dems,” he tweeted Saturday.

While there is no evidence of such fraud, Clinton’s campaign agreed to participate “in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”

The Obama administration has taken pains to bolster trust in the electoral system, with a senior administration official saying recently that the election results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

Presidential historians said Trump’s comments have little precedent.

“Trump is the first winning candidate to question the legitimacy of the process that gave him the White House,” said Timothy Naftali, a history professor at New York University.

Princeton historian Julian Zelizer noted that in 1876, both candidates for president — Samuel J. Tilden, the Democrat, and Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican and eventual winner — claimed voter fraud. “But in that case, there was evidence of fraud and corruption in certain areas,” he wrote in an email.

“In this case, we see the victor making blanket accusation of fraud to delegitimize 2.5 million votes,” Zelizer said. “Given there is no evidence to support the claim, this is simply stunning and troubling as a sign as to what he will do as president.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-illegal-voting-clinton-231860

[RandallFan]

Instead of pandering to Global citizens (Illegal Mexicans,etc.), Trump is going to give a few crumbs to Muricans in the midwest. A very cheap price.

The media, the dems, the cuckservatives are totally pissed that the GOP could win national elections with the electoral college when it appeared just a few weeks ago that Trump was going to commit suicide on this issue.

[PierzStyx]

Way too many straw men crammed into one long, condescending post. And you continue to not answer direct questions, so obviously this is not a two-way conversation...you want to talk at me, while ignoring almost everything I say.

The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws. Why not just embrace that you're a globalist, like Obama, Hillary, GW Bush, etc?

I don't have a problem with the concept of global government, in and of itself. But the reality is, it will never work except under God Himself... so advocating for no borders now is playing into the hands of the satanic sociopaths currently running this world, because that is exactly what they want, the New World Order.

So you are not only agreeing with Hillary, Obama, and the Republican neocon globalists, but you are being a useful tool for them, with your anti-borders, "illegals should be allowed to vote" talk, because that's their goal too. Even if its for different reasons.

I love the absolute hypocrisy of your post.

I directly respond to you and you can't even come back with anything. So you just carry out ad hominen attacks and then denounce what you apparently can't even come up with moral, logical, or philosophical reasons to oppose. You can't actually tell me how it is constitutional or morally consistent with the concepts of liberty to shut millions of people out of the legal process and assert absolute dominance over their lives and property without their consent and against their will. But it makes sense why you can't explain it constitutionally or morally because such laws are neither constitutional nor moral.

But thank you for proving my original point. National government or globalist government, it doesn't matter. You're all oppressive tyrants. You all deny basic human rights in favor of power and domination.

You keep comparing me to Obama and Clinton, yet you are the one exactly like them. You are the one asserting the right to regulate the lives and property of nonviolent people exercising their natural rights simply because you do not approve of how they live or where they live. As you believe the solution to any problem is to legalize government assault of a group of people "for the common good' you are the Leftist.

[PierzStyx]

You'd do well to educate yourself on what consent actually means in the framework of our Constitututional Republic.

I know exactly what it means. Do you? Here, let me help:

Consent of The Governed:

"A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed

And I'm not a citizen of anything. Nation-states or globalist states both are violations of human liberty as much as the state is defined as being founded on violence (The State being the organization which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory) violate the basic core concepts of libertarianism, natural rights, and human liberty.

Being accused of being a globalist for believing "all men are created equal" is such a joke and just demonstrates how much these supposed defenders of the Constitution are complete ignorant of basic American ideals of liberty and what the Constitution actually allows.

[Superfluous Man]

Why even post the OP? It's just ridiculous assertions supported by zero evidence.

[Superfluous Man]

[
The funny thing is, you deny being a globalist, but everything you're talking about is in direct opposition to borders and immigration laws.\

How does being opposed to borders an immigration laws make someone a globalist?

[lilymc]

I love the absolute hypocrisy of your post.

I directly respond to you and you can't even come back with anything. So you just carry out ad hominen attacks and then denounce what you apparently can't even come up with moral, logical, or philosophical reasons to oppose. You can't actually tell me how it is constitutional or morally consistent with the concepts of liberty to shut millions of people out of the legal process and assert absolute dominance over their lives and property without their consent and against their will. But it makes sense why you can't explain it constitutionally or morally because such laws are neither constitutional nor moral.

But thank you for proving my original point. National government or globalist government, it doesn't matter. You're all oppressive tyrants. You all deny basic human rights in favor of power and domination.

You keep comparing me to Obama and Clinton, yet you are the one exactly like them. You are the one asserting the right to regulate the lives and property of nonviolent people exercising their natural rights simply because you do not approve of how they live or where they live. As you believe the solution to any problem is to legalize government assault of a group of people "for the common good' you are the Leftist.

That's hilarious, because you were the one who ignored most of what I said.... twice. And now you're doing it again. Yet you want me to address everything you say. Stop ignoring what I'm saying, and then maybe we can have a two-way conversation.

Let me try asking you a yes or no question, because I can see that you are slippery. If you are against borders, and want everyone in the world to have the same exact constitutional rights (which sounds great, I'm not disagreeing with you on that) then do you think that is possible the way the world is now, with nation states? Yes or no?

[lilymc]

How does being opposed to borders an immigration laws make someone a globalist?

Think about it.

[Natural Citizen]

I know exactly what it means. Do you? Here, let me help:

Consent of The Governed:

"A condition urged by many as a requirement for legitimate government: that the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people, as expressed by votes in elections. (See Declaration of Independence, democracy, and John Locke.)" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed

And I'm not a citizen of anything. Nation-states or globalist states both are violations of human liberty as much as the state is defined as being founded on violence (The State being the organization which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory) violate the basic core concepts of libertarianism, natural rights, and human liberty.

Being accused of being a globalist for believing "all men are created equal" is such a joke and just demonstrates how much these supposed defenders of the Constitution are complete ignorant of basic American ideals of liberty and what the Constitution actually allows.

No, silly goose. You don't know what it means. Mainly because you don't know what We The People means. Or maybe you do and you just don't like it because of a thing or something. So you have Consent of The Governed all fudged up. You can't take Consent of The Governed out of its intended context and make it what you wanna. That won't work. Consent is a very important term. It's a moral duty to provide it or refuse it, really.

Here read this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493927-The-American-Ideal-of-1776-The-Twelve-Basic-American-Principles&p=6197351&viewfull=1#post6197351

It'll be good for you once the old light bulb stars blinkin. Now, I put that thread there just for these very situations because we don't want to look silly of our own doing if we don't have to.

I have a couple more of around here but you have to go through that one first for everything to click. A place for everything and everything in its place kinda thing.

But thanks for that dictionary.com link. That kind of reminded me of the time a guy gave me a dictionary link to learn what freedom and liberty meant. Now that wat was a hoot. As if a dictionary defines principles. HelloOoOoooo.

And, no, I'm pretty sure I've read most of Locke's works. So I'm good on him. I've read the founding documents...The Declaration...this and that and this and that...gosh, I read alot of different guys' writings and musings now that I think about it.


Speaking of voting, I see that you didn't vote in our community poll. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=6265&do=showresults

You should totally vote in the poll.

[Superfluous Man]

No, silly goose. You don't know what it means. Mainly because you don't know what We The People means. Or maybe you do and you just don't like it because of a thing or something. So you have Consent of The Governed all fudged up. You can't take Consent of The Governed out of its intended context and make it what you wanna. That won't work. Consent is a very important term. It's a moral duty to provide it or refuse it, really.

Here read this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493927-The-American-Ideal-of-1776-The-Twelve-Basic-American-Principles&p=6197351&viewfull=1#post6197351

It'll be good for you once the old light bulb stars blinkin. Now, I put that thread there just for these very situations because we don't want to look silly of our own doing if we don't have to.

I have a couple more of around here but you have to go through that one first for everything to click. A place for everything and everything in its place kinda thing.

But thanks for that dictionary.com link. That kind of reminded me of the time a guy gave me a dictionary link to learn what freedom and liberty meant. Now that wat was a hoot. As if a dictionary defines principles. HelloOoOoooo.

And, no, I'm pretty sure I've read most of Locke's works. So I'm good on him. I've read the founding documents...The Declaration...this and that and this and that...gosh, I read alot of different guys' writings and musings now that I think about it.


Speaking of voting, I see that you didn't vote in our community poll. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=6265&do=showresults

You should totally vote in the poll.

You don't really believe that "We the people" ordained and established the US Constitution, like it says, do you?

[Natural Citizen]

You don't really believe that "We the people" ordained and established the US Constitution, like it says, do you?

Ha. Come on, Superfluous Man. Don't pull a S_F on me with asking me loaded questions. I have a pretty good grasp on muh history as well as some of its shortcomings.

Now you don't support the Constitution as I recall, right? And the founders, you don't respect them either, right? And I think maybe you even reject the Bill Of Rights if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong about your view on thje Bill Of Rights, though. Please correct me if I am. I just want to be clear on your position if we're gonna have a pow wow about history and the nature of our Constitutional Republic.

Really, I don't even feel like debating at the moment. I'm just kind of chillaxing and flipping through the threads. Thinking about making something to eat.

[Superfluous Man]

Ha. Come on, Superfluous Man. Don't pull a S_F on me with asking me loaded questions. I have a pretty good grasp on muh history as well as some of its shortcomings.

Now you don't support the Constitution as I recall, right? And the founders, you don't respect them either, right? And I think maybe you even reject the Bill Of Rights if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong about your view on thje Bill Of Rights, though. Please correct me if I am. I just want to be clear on your position if we're gonna have a pow wow about history and the nature of our Constitutional Republic.

Really, I don't even feel like debating at the moment. I'm just kind of chillaxing and flipping through the threads. Thinking about making something to eat.

Yeah, you've pretty much got my number.

[helmuth_hubener]

Look, everyone agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted. Now I am open-minded and willing to hear other points of view. Maybe it wasn't exactly 3 million. Was it 4 million? Maybe. Was it 5 million? Seems high, but if you think so let's talk about your reasoning and case. Maybe it was only 2.5 million.

Just how many illegal immigrants did vote? That's what we need to be talking about here.

[Superfluous Man]

Look, everyone agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted.

Got any evidence for that?

[Ender]

Ha. Come on, Superfluous Man. Don't pull a S_F on me with asking me loaded questions. I have a pretty good grasp on muh history as well as some of its shortcomings.

Now you don't support the Constitution as I recall, right? And the founders, you don't respect them either, right? And I think maybe you even reject the Bill Of Rights if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong about your view on thje Bill Of Rights, though. Please correct me if I am. I just want to be clear on your position if we're gonna have a pow wow about history and the nature of our Constitutional Republic.

Really, I don't even feel like debating at the moment. I'm just kind of chillaxing and flipping through the threads. Thinking about making something to eat.

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to make a strong central government and make an end to the separate countries, we now call "states".

Worked pretty well, dontcha think?

[Ender]

Got any evidence for that?

Zip, negative, nien, nyet, NO.

[seapilot]

Look, everyone agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted. Now I am open-minded and willing to hear other points of view. Maybe it wasn't exactly 3 million. Was it 4 million? Maybe. Was it 5 million? Seems high, but if you think so let's talk about your reasoning and case. Maybe it was only 2.5 million.

Just how many illegal immigrants did vote? That's what we need to be talking about here.

How is anyone going to reallyknow if an illegal alien voted or not? There is soft evidence this happens but they look like any other registered voter and it probably is more likely than Russian Hackers.

Some videos of soft evidence on how easy it is for illegals to vote in California. Illegals can get Drivers licenses in California. In 2010 there were 2.5 million illegals in California http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html.
Illegals getting drivers licenses in California.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kQQNvMx754

What a person needs to register to vote in California. Go to 2:00. Drivers license, utility bill etc. pretty easy. They also can vote by mail. Did 3 million illegals vote in 2016? No hard evidence to prove, but they have the ability to easily do so in California and why wouldn't they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTF5o-Ma1Yg

[seapilot]

California's motor voter law


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

[seapilot]

HH here are some numbers (very rough) of how many illegals might be in USA around 38 million.

http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states

A poll (reliable only as the taker a conservative think tank) says 13% undocumented immigrants voted in past elections.

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/


California Election Integrity project, points to legislation on how illegals have had easy access to voting in California since the 1990s.

https://www.electionintegrityproject.com/california/the-perfect-storm/

[Zippyjuan]

The 30 million estimate I saw figured that the official estimates were wrong because there were more housing starts in North Carolina expected and New York had more students than they "should have" (doesn't say the extra homes or students were immigrants). How housing starts in North Carolina translates to illegal immigrants in states like Texas, California, and Arizona I don't know (they didn't either).

No link to the actual "poll" showing 13% of illegal immigrants voted? Try this: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

It notes:


One potential concern about the results presented in
this paper is that they might reflect survey response errors.
Specifically, if some citizens intentionally or inadvertently
indicated that they were non-citizens, this could produce
the pattern we find e a small number of apparent noncitizens
engaging in the political process.

(Non- citizens include those here legally as well as illegally).


Given confidentiality and legal issues, it is not ethically
possible to directly verify whether individuals who
voted were/are non-citizens.

They found 300 people out of 55,000 who claimed they were "non- citizens" and voted.

[H. E. Panqui]

helmuth limbaughs: Look, everyone agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted.

:rolleyes:

...i corrected this for you, helmuth: 'Look, [every republican-cheerleading radio/teevee parrot] agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted...' :)

[CCTelander]

Zip, negative, nien, nyet, NO.


You forgot "nada." Considering the subject matter of this thread, that's almost unpardonable. ;)

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Former ICE Agent Bolsters Trump’s Claim About Illegal Immigrants Voting In Presidential Election

"I worked in six locations across the United States. I probably arrested more than 1,000 illegal aliens in my career and I routinely encountered people who were in possession of voter registration cards.”http://www.westernjournalism.com/former-ice-agent-bolsters-trumps-claim-about-illegal-immigrants-voting-in-presidential-election/

[Ender]

You forgot "nada." Considering the subject matter of this thread, that's almost unpardonable. ;)

Thanks- I usually have "nada" in there. ;)

[Tywysog Cymru]

This sounds a lot like claims that Trump won because of voter fraud.

[Anti Federalist]

Humans have a natural basic human right to consent to their government or refuse it. That is Jefferson's point in the Declaration of Independence. The way that manifests in America is by voting, that is in fact how voting is sold to the population- as your ability to consent in your government. In the American system to deny someone the ability to vote is to deny them the ability to consent or refuse to the government and to subject them to the tyranny of everyone else. You advocate and enforce tyranny over immigrants.

Finally, history shows you're simply wrong about immigration restrictions. From 1776 to 1882 America had exactly ZERO restrictions on immigration. The Constitution gave the government no power to regulate immigration at all, only the ability to determine naturalization- that is the process by which one became a citizen. Anyone could move here. Anyone could come in and live here at any time. And they did. America didn't dissolve into nothingness. Globalist governments did spring form the mire. The country functioned quite well. It is an error to think you need immigration restriction in order to have a functioning and independent country. You're simply wrong.

Uh huh, and in 1880 there were not 7.5 billion people on the planet. Nor was there a federal government the size and shape and power it is today.

The sad fact of the matter is that, in spite of lofty ideals of western enlightenment, the vast majority of the people on the face of the earth are either uncaring and apathetic towards the ideals we both hold to be true, or they are openly hostile to them.

Every nation to the south of our current border has been mired in leftist, rightist or tribal authoritarianism of the most brutal sort, or corruption, for over a thousand years.

They do not give a tin shit about Jeffersonian ideals.

And that is most of the "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" of the world.

I'm not sure I have any good solutions that fall into a perfect peg of individualist freedom, but I do know this:

If nothing is done about this, those lofty goals of individual freedom and constitutional republicanism and western enlightenment will be as dead as Julius Ceasar within another 100 years, and the world will enter another "dark age" from which it may never recover.

[helmuth_hubener]

Thanks- I usually have "nada" in there. ;)
This is America. Speak English here. :mad:

[helmuth_hubener]

[T]he vast majority of the [7.5 Billion!] people on the face of the earth are either uncaring and apathetic towards the ideals we both hold to be true, or they are openly hostile to them.

Every nation to the south of our current border has been mired in leftist, rightist or tribal authoritarianism of the most brutal sort, or corruption, for over a thousand years.

They do not give a [hoot] about Jeffersonian ideals.

And that is most of the "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" of the world. This is very true. And I say that as someone pro- these huddled masses! They are very nice, very interesting people! I've traveled. I've met them. Very great! Very wonderful! They are also very different. The people in India are very different than the typical long-time American.

They are not -- please note -- they are not very different from the typical Indian immigrant living in America. This is a very meaningful and important truth to consider. It really means something. Think about it.

If everyone in India moves to America, and everyone in America moves to India, what happens? America becomes India. Period. India with snow.

People around the world are different. They're really really different.


I'm not sure I have any good solutions that fall into a perfect peg of individualist freedom, but I do know this:

If nothing is done about this, those lofty goals of individual freedom and constitutional republicanism and western enlightenment will be as dead as Julius Ceasar within another 100 years, and the world will enter another "dark age" from which it may never recover. I don't know that I do either, and I also see our civ as rolling down a steep, steep cliff to destruction. You and I are in the same boat, AF. May we be granted the wisdom to find a way to prevent what is coming.

[Ender]

This is America. Speak English here. :mad:

Tell that to the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Polish/Russians/French/Chinese/Japanese/ etc,. etc,. etc., that all live here.

[Superfluous Man]

[/h]http://www.westernjournalism.com/former-ice-agent-bolsters-trumps-claim-about-illegal-immigrants-voting-in-presidential-election/

What is a voter registration card?

I've voted in three states and we never had those. People actually have to have a voter registration card in some places, and they carry these around with them?

[lilymc]

Tell that to the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Polish/Russians/French/Chinese/Japanese/ etc,. etc,. etc., that all live here.

Maybe it's just me...but when I go to another country, I don't expect them to speak English, I make an effort to speak their language. (I may not become fluent if I'm only there temporarily, but I at least learn enough to communicate) Why is it such a bad thing to want that to go both ways? Do we not already have enough division? Are we not supposed to be united?

[Superfluous Man]

How is anyone going to reallyknow if an illegal alien voted or not? There is soft evidence this happens but they look like any other registered voter and it probably is more likely than Russian Hackers.

Some videos of soft evidence on how easy it is for illegals to vote in California. Illegals can get Drivers licenses in California. In 2010 there were 2.5 million illegals in California http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/map_illegal_immigrant_population_by_state.html.
Illegals getting drivers licenses in California.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kQQNvMx754

What a person needs to register to vote in California. Go to 2:00. Drivers license, utility bill etc. pretty easy. They also can vote by mail. Did 3 million illegals vote in 2016? No hard evidence to prove, but they have the ability to easily do so in California and why wouldn't they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTF5o-Ma1Yg

Notice how all your sources are people trying to sensationalize a risk of illegal immigrant voting, rather than simply checking California's own Secretary of State website.

In fact, to fill out a voter registration application in California, in addition to your driver's license, you also have to provide the last four digits of your SSN. And then the state uses this information to verify your eligibility prior to registering you to vote. The eligibility requirements include being a US citizen.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/frequently-asked-questions/

[Superfluous Man]

Maybe it's just me...but when I go to another country, I don't expect them to speak English, I make an effort to speak their language. (I may not become fluent if I'm only there temporarily, but I at least learn enough to communicate) Why is it such a bad thing to want that to go both ways? Do we not already have enough division? Are we not supposed to be united?

That's great that you do that.

But the choice of what language you speak is a voluntary one that's between you and whomever you speak with. It's none of the government's business.

It's also not the case that every country has just one language. Some have hundreds. The USA is one of those.

[lilymc]

That's great that you do that.

But the choice of what language you speak is a voluntary one that's between you and whomever you speak with. It's none of the government's business.

It's also not the case that every country has just one language. Some have hundreds. The USA is one of those.

I didn't say anything about the government, don't add on to what I said. And of course some countries have more than one language, but there's usually a primary language, that's what I was talking about in terms of the US.

[helmuth_hubener]

Tell that to the Germans/Italians/Spanish/Polish/Russians/French/Chinese/Japanese/ etc,. etc,. etc., that all live here.

In this case, I am telling it to you. You will kindly speak English. Thank you.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Ha. Come on, Superfluous Man. Don't pull a S_F on me with asking me loaded questions. I have a pretty good grasp on muh history as well as some of its shortcomings.

Now you don't support the Constitution as I recall, right? And the founders, you don't respect them either, right? And I think maybe you even reject the Bill Of Rights if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong about your view on thje Bill Of Rights, though. Please correct me if I am. I just want to be clear on your position if we're gonna have a pow wow about history and the nature of our Constitutional Republic.

Really, I don't even feel like debating at the moment. I'm just kind of chillaxing and flipping through the threads. Thinking about making something to eat.

NC your quote is as relevant and poignant as ever! great find!

[Danke]

A strong anomaly in CA results: a national average of 54% of registered voters would suggest 10 million votes in CA, not 13 million.


Wikipedia shows that the average number of registered voters, who voted in 2016 election, is 54%. California is a deep blue state, where major candidates did not even campaign, as it was a forgone conclusion that California will vote for a Democrat for president. What’s more, in prior elections Republicans had some incentive to vote because there was at least a Republican candidate for senate. However, a couple of years ago California past the “top two law”. What it meant is that all candidates from all parties competed in one pool in the primary in all races aside from the presidential race. Two top finishers regardless of party affiliation proceeded to the general election. That meant is that two Democrats could end up competing in the general election and that is exactly what happened in 2016 the senate race in CA. So, there was very little excitement in CA, particularly among Republicans and Independents. Even among Democrats there wasn’t much excitement, as most knew that CA will go for Hillary for president and people did not care much which one of the two Democrats will be the US senator from California.


However, the numbers that are being reported are astonishing. California voter and party profiles shows that there are only 17.9 million registered voters in California. So, if Californians were to vote at the same percentage as the nation as a whole, meaning 54% of registered voters, we would expect about 9.7 million votes. However, considering an apathy, lack of campaigning by the major candidates in California, lack of GOP candidate for senate, we would expect more like 50% of the registered voters to cast the ballot, roughly 9 million votes.


New York Times 2016 election results http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president shows that 8,292,725 cast their vote for Hillary in Ca, 4,276,750 for Trump and 41,832 voted for the third parties. Hillary’s vote alone was nearly equal to what we expected for all the parties combined in California. The total numbers showed that about 13 million people voted in California or 78% of the registered voters. This number is a huge outlier. It means that 24% more voted in California than nationwide. We never saw such numbers. Additionally, we have seen reports in state newspapers and local radio stations that some people observed large stacks of ballots being mailed to the same addresses. So, we have seen 3 million votes cast more in California than it was expected based on 54% nationwide average and nearly 4 million votes more than what was expected based on general apathy in California. This is more than the total popular vote lead that Clinton has. She states that, though Trump won in the electoral vote, he does not have a mandate because Clinton won the popular vote. Well, Clinton’s lead came from 3-4 million questionable votes in California. There is a high suspicion that those are votes of non-citizens, dead voters, bogus voters or people voting in multiple states. It is imperative that the incoming Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, launch an investigation of California voter rolls and 2016 votes in California to solve this mystery and help us, Californians, have clean elections in the future.


http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/a-strong-anomaly-in-ca-results-a-national-average-of-54-of-registered-voters-would-suggest-10-mln-votes-in-ca-not-13-mln/

[Ender]

Maybe it's just me...but when I go to another country, I don't expect them to speak English, I make an effort to speak their language. (I may not become fluent if I'm only there temporarily, but I at least learn enough to communicate) Why is it such a bad thing to want that to go both ways? Do we not already have enough division? Are we not supposed to be united?

It's not bad- if you were living in Germany, you'd learn German but you would still speak English at home, I'm sure.

If you're in France, better get the accent down perfect- the French HATE American accents brutalizing their French. ;)

[Ender]

In this case, I am telling it to you. You will kindly speak English. Thank you.

Lo seinto, no comprendo.

[TheCount]

Look, everyone agrees that tons of illegal immigrants voted.

Trump supporters' pocket mice seem to have multiplied since the election.

[TheCount]

This is America. Speak English here. :mad:

لا

[Zippyjuan]

A strong anomaly in CA results: a national average of 54% of registered voters would suggest 10 million votes in CA, not 13 million.


Wikipedia shows that the average number of registered voters, who voted in 2016 election, is 54%. California is a deep blue state, where major candidates did not even campaign, as it was a forgone conclusion that California will vote for a Democrat for president. What’s more, in prior elections Republicans had some incentive to vote because there was at least a Republican candidate for senate. However, a couple of years ago California past the “top two law”. What it meant is that all candidates from all parties competed in one pool in the primary in all races aside from the presidential race. Two top finishers regardless of party affiliation proceeded to the general election. That meant is that two Democrats could end up competing in the general election and that is exactly what happened in 2016 the senate race in CA. So, there was very little excitement in CA, particularly among Republicans and Independents. Even among Democrats there wasn’t much excitement, as most knew that CA will go for Hillary for president and people did not care much which one of the two Democrats will be the US senator from California.


However, the numbers that are being reported are astonishing. California voter and party profiles shows that there are only 17.9 million registered voters in California. So, if Californians were to vote at the same percentage as the nation as a whole, meaning 54% of registered voters, we would expect about 9.7 million votes. However, considering an apathy, lack of campaigning by the major candidates in California, lack of GOP candidate for senate, we would expect more like 50% of the registered voters to cast the ballot, roughly 9 million votes.


New York Times 2016 election results http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president shows that 8,292,725 cast their vote for Hillary in Ca, 4,276,750 for Trump and 41,832 voted for the third parties. Hillary’s vote alone was nearly equal to what we expected for all the parties combined in California. The total numbers showed that about 13 million people voted in California or 78% of the registered voters. This number is a huge outlier. It means that 24% more voted in California than nationwide. We never saw such numbers. Additionally, we have seen reports in state newspapers and local radio stations that some people observed large stacks of ballots being mailed to the same addresses. So, we have seen 3 million votes cast more in California than it was expected based on 54% nationwide average and nearly 4 million votes more than what was expected based on general apathy in California. This is more than the total popular vote lead that Clinton has. She states that, though Trump won in the electoral vote, he does not have a mandate because Clinton won the popular vote. Well, Clinton’s lead came from 3-4 million questionable votes in California. There is a high suspicion that those are votes of non-citizens, dead voters, bogus voters or people voting in multiple states. It is imperative that the incoming Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, launch an investigation of California voter rolls and 2016 votes in California to solve this mystery and help us, Californians, have clean elections in the future.


http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/a-strong-anomaly-in-ca-results-a-national-average-of-54-of-registered-voters-would-suggest-10-mln-votes-in-ca-not-13-mln/

Orly Taiz? The Birther Queen?


California is a deep blue state, where major candidates did not even campaign,

Just here in San Diego we had Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

[Superfluous Man]

A strong anomaly in CA results: a national average of 54% of registered voters would suggest 10 million votes in CA, not 13 million.


Wikipedia shows that the average number of registered voters, who voted in 2016 election, is 54%. California is a deep blue state, where major candidates did not even campaign, as it was a forgone conclusion that California will vote for a Democrat for president. What’s more, in prior elections Republicans had some incentive to vote because there was at least a Republican candidate for senate. However, a couple of years ago California past the “top two law”. What it meant is that all candidates from all parties competed in one pool in the primary in all races aside from the presidential race. Two top finishers regardless of party affiliation proceeded to the general election. That meant is that two Democrats could end up competing in the general election and that is exactly what happened in 2016 the senate race in CA. So, there was very little excitement in CA, particularly among Republicans and Independents. Even among Democrats there wasn’t much excitement, as most knew that CA will go for Hillary for president and people did not care much which one of the two Democrats will be the US senator from California.


However, the numbers that are being reported are astonishing. California voter and party profiles shows that there are only 17.9 million registered voters in California. So, if Californians were to vote at the same percentage as the nation as a whole, meaning 54% of registered voters, we would expect about 9.7 million votes. However, considering an apathy, lack of campaigning by the major candidates in California, lack of GOP candidate for senate, we would expect more like 50% of the registered voters to cast the ballot, roughly 9 million votes.


New York Times 2016 election results http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president shows that 8,292,725 cast their vote for Hillary in Ca, 4,276,750 for Trump and 41,832 voted for the third parties. Hillary’s vote alone was nearly equal to what we expected for all the parties combined in California. The total numbers showed that about 13 million people voted in California or 78% of the registered voters. This number is a huge outlier. It means that 24% more voted in California than nationwide. We never saw such numbers. Additionally, we have seen reports in state newspapers and local radio stations that some people observed large stacks of ballots being mailed to the same addresses. So, we have seen 3 million votes cast more in California than it was expected based on 54% nationwide average and nearly 4 million votes more than what was expected based on general apathy in California. This is more than the total popular vote lead that Clinton has. She states that, though Trump won in the electoral vote, he does not have a mandate because Clinton won the popular vote. Well, Clinton’s lead came from 3-4 million questionable votes in California. There is a high suspicion that those are votes of non-citizens, dead voters, bogus voters or people voting in multiple states. It is imperative that the incoming Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, launch an investigation of California voter rolls and 2016 votes in California to solve this mystery and help us, Californians, have clean elections in the future.


http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/a-strong-anomaly-in-ca-results-a-national-average-of-54-of-registered-voters-would-suggest-10-mln-votes-in-ca-not-13-mln/

Turnout in California wasn't exceptionally high.
http://www.electproject.org/2016g