[Thanos]

I think the idea of getting along with each other will be in hibernation for a while until the overdue bloodletting, and the anger/hate motivating it, has had it's day. As for the American left, well, whatever. I supported the women's march as the big fuck-you it was to the bible-thumps. The "resistance" so far has really just been celebrities mouthing off as usual, the sort of goofs like Madonna who can talk tough about blowing up the White House but then slink off to her billion dollar net-worth lifestyle of complete and absolute privilege. If all it's going to be is performance art being done on the streets of sympathetic cities like New York, then so much for the grand rebellion. Good thing it's being performed for free because it's not worth paying to see.

[PluggyRug]

xerxes xerxes:

...Which is actually based on facts and reality, unlike Trump's facts, which come from his delusions or Bannon's diseased mind.

Cmon xerxes the MSM based on facts? More like information twisted to suit their agenda or create sensationalism. Time and time again they are caught lying.

[xerxes]

Thanos Thanos:

I think the idea of getting along with each other will be in hibernation for a while until the overdue bloodletting, and the anger/hate motivating it, has had it's day. As for the American left, well, whatever. I supported the women's march as the big fuck-you it was to the bible-thumps. The "resistance" so far has really just been celebrities mouthing off as usual, the sort of goofs like Madonna who can talk tough about blowing up the White House but then slink off to her billion dollar net-worth lifestyle of complete and absolute privilege. If all it's going to be is performance art being done on the streets of sympathetic cities like New York, then so much for the grand rebellion. Good thing it's being performed for free because it's not worth paying to see.

I agree. All that defiance and comraderie last Saturday was great to see. But if It isn't channeled into a political movement like the Tea Party was, it will all be for naught.

That's what drove me the most crazy about the Occupy movement. It was just passive protest. No political action came of it. And I'll be choked if I see it happen again.

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

Just as the right has gone far to the right, so too will the left. There will be barely any ground left for centrists anymore if any.

Labour in the UK have a leader who is very close to far left.

Daily, he becomes more and more of a laughing stock.

No one listens to him any more.

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

The Democrats have come a long from way from the election shenanigans of the '60's and 70's and the days of machine politics.

Yeah they are much better at it.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Given that the Trump supporters don't believe what they see with their own two eyes, I don't expect much to come from a Trump controlled investigation into fraud.

Well, we will see, won't we ?




Oh, as usual, a couple of days after everyone is yelling that nope it didn't happen,

the wall of lies starts to crack..



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

$1:

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

Watch this space for what comes out in a couple of weeks.

[BeaverFever]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

xerxes xerxes:

...Which is actually based on facts and reality, unlike Trump's facts, which come from his delusions or Bannon's diseased mind.

Cmon xerxes the MSM based on facts? More like information twisted to suit their agenda or create sensationalism. Time and time again they are caught lying.

Time and time again they're caught sensationalizing stories but at least they're true stories that have just been exaggerated or cherry-picked. Team trump fabricates and tells blatant lies that are contrary to what you can observe with your own eyes. Let's not pretend these two things are the same.

And just for the record, MSM distortion is because they are trying to sell advertising not because they are part of some kind of worldwide socialist plot

[BartSimpson]

Seems like there's something to that vote fraud after all:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

$1:

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.


Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems like there's something to that vote fraud after all:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

$1:

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.


Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

martin14 martin14:

xerxes xerxes:

The Democrats have come a long from way from the election shenanigans of the '60's and 70's and the days of machine politics.

Yeah they are much better at it.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Given that the Trump supporters don't believe what they see with their own two eyes, I don't expect much to come from a Trump controlled investigation into fraud.

Well, we will see, won't we ?




Oh, as usual, a couple of days after everyone is yelling that nope it didn't happen,

the wall of lies starts to crack..



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

$1:

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

Watch this space for what comes out in a couple of weeks.

I can actually provide an update on that right now. Again, it is an issue where the source disagrees with what it is being used for.

First and foremost, the author of the paper has been very adamant about the issue of people misquoting his research. At most, they said, 14% of non-citizen residents (not of voters) may have cast a ballot, which he again characterizes as “the absolute extreme.” He points repeatedly to the fact that this would make up well less than 1% of the electorate, and has repeatedly stated that there is no way the difference between Trump and Clinton could be accounted for by non-citizen votes. He has repeatedly attacked Trump for trying to use his research and believes any viable figures would be far lower and has spent the last few days trying to stop the use of his work in this argument. The figures he uses are closer to 100,000, at 2.2% of non-citizens. Already, we are a fraction of what your article has claimed.

The authors of the paper have also pointed out that there are severe shortcomings in their work (this is somewhat understated, as I will point out later), with much of the information coming from estimates and extrapolations using a sample population that was undersized. It also noted significant issues with the study being an opt-in, self-reporting affair, meaning the information is significantly less reliable. By their own words, their "extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty."

Miller was, at most, able to provide peripheral evidence of only 300 instances where voter fraud may have occurred (through all 8 elections from 2004 to 2016), and that includes a majority of cases that had little to do with fraud (machines not working, people not filling in a voting card correctly), most of which involved actual citizens of the United States. Most other sources continue to cite the number of instances to be in the teens (for example).

However, even if we did have an author who was 100% behind what Trump claims he said, there’d still be a few road blocks. First and foremost being that this wasn’t originally published by a reputable news source, but a blog called the Monkey Cage. That blog also noted the sheer amount of research which did, in fact, contradict the article, as well as pointing out it’s shortcomings. Several of those rebuttals were peer reviewed and published (such as this one) to demonstrate the problematic methods used by the authors. Here are some of the other rebuttals.

Some highlighted criticisms:

- 41% of self-reported non-citizens had identified themselves as citizens in the prior survey; a similar number wandered the other direction, highlighted the unreliability of the information contained therein
- Small sample numbers (N=5) is far from statistically significant
- The CCES depends heavily on opt-in internet samples spread through networking, and likely do not reflect the entire non-citizen population at best, especially since the questions were only in English
- Weak interpretation of questions; in example, if you ask someone if they would vote, most would answer yes, even if they could not vote, because they would if they could
- Significant concerns relating to bias, including where his funding comes from and who he often works with

In short, the article makes use of a paper by an author who disagrees with the interpretation of his work in the first place, and secondly makes use of a paper which has already been broadly dismissed in thorough pieces by various other bodies. I'd also remind you guys that the Pew article being cited a few pages back by one of you was written by people who also disagreed with Miller regarding voter fraud. Here is the executive director of Pew stating as such.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems like there's something to that vote fraud after all:

$1:

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.


Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Wait . . .weren't you just complaining about the inaccuracy of pre-election polls? And now this 'polling' that gives no population figures or margin of error, then goes on to say that illegal voting is probably not a factor in the election?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems like there's something to that vote fraud after all:

Wait . . .weren't you just complaining about the inaccuracy of pre-election polls? And now this 'polling' that gives no population figures or margin of error, then goes on to say that illegal voting is probably not a factor in the election?

"Seems like" is not a conclusion. Just saying it's worth a look.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems like there's something to that vote fraud after all:

Wait . . .weren't you just complaining about the inaccuracy of pre-election polls? And now this 'polling' that gives no population figures or margin of error, then goes on to say that illegal voting is probably not a factor in the election?

"Seems like" is not a conclusion. Just saying it's worth a look.

But, as Khar posted; the poll population was low, and many of the respondents lied. These things also skewed pre-election results, and made them inaccurate because people didn't want to admit they were thinking of voting Trump.

I'd go with more detailed studies that say you are more likely to be eaten by a shark who just won Powerball, than meet someone who voted illegally.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd go with more detailed studies that say you are more likely to be eaten by a shark who just won Powerball, than meet someone who voted illegally.

I voted in Ontario last year so you just beat the odds, didn't you?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd go with more detailed studies that say you are more likely to be eaten by a shark who just won Powerball, than meet someone who voted illegally.

I voted in Ontario last year so you just beat the odds, didn't you?

Damn shark won't share his winning with me, and ate my arm!

[PluggyRug]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Time and time again they're caught sensationalizing stories but at least they're true stories that have just been exaggerated or cherry-picked. Team trump fabricates and tells blatant lies that are contrary to what you can observe with your own eyes. Let's not pretend these two things are the same.

And just for the record, MSM distortion is because they are trying to sell advertising not because they are part of some kind of worldwide socialist plot

I would agree with latter. Here is some of my beef with the MSM.

[Tricks]

Why not just go after him supporting holistic garbage? We all know the guy has about as much scientific knowledge as a squirrel, so that just supports the argument.