4 ms·

Can't wait to see what Altman writes when the voter fraud is investigated and it's over 3 million fraudulent votes. We already know of 800,000 (http://m.washin

Can't wait to see what Altman writes when the voter fraud is investigated and it's over 3 million fraudulent votes. We already know of 800,000 (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinto...). Detroit was apparent. The rest will come easily. What else is Altman wrong about??

therealdrag0 10y ago
> We already know of 800,000 Well no. The article you posted, which doesn't provide any data or source to any actual study, just says some researchers EXTRAPOLATED polling data, and they themselves say it is NOT plausible for non-citizen votes to account for all of Clinton's margin. So not only is this hardly anything to base a conclusion off of, the conclusion that is arrived at is that Clinton still won the popular vote. Focusing on voter fraud after winning is a weird tack to take, especially when the president has a 36% approval rating, so many people would enjoy a revote.
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  Focusing on voter fraud is critical to sovereignty, especially with future elections coming up. A nation needs strict voting laws or it is not a nation. Besides non-citizens voting, there were also multiple votes across county and state lines as well as dead people voting. So I'm not just blaming illegal aliens. Ultimately, this argument is not going to go anywhere, so how about this: How much money would you like to bet, that IF there is a voter fraud investigation, there were over 2,868,520 fraudulent votes cast across the nation? Approval ratings are far greater than 36% already BTW.
  - therealdrag0 10y ago
    I agree that strict voting is important. I'm just waiting for evidence of widespread fraud before passing judgment. Most recounts end up with different numbers just due to human error. This is "expected", and that should be fixed.I just read the book "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" and he mentions that there was an election in Washington State that was recounted 4 times with different outcomes each time. That's crazy. And as far as we know nothing to do with malicious intent. > How much money would you like to bet... I wouldn't bet any money because I have no idea. I assume there is some baseline level of fraud in most elections. It wouldn't surprise me if there is SOME fraud, but as most of the hullabaloo around fraud seems much more ideological than evidence based, I have no idea what to actually expect.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Voter fraud is just one issue with respect to voting integrity. Easy-to-use and understand, verifiable voting procedures are very important as well. The 2000 presidential election made that abundantly clear.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

therealdrag0 10y ago

> We already know of 800,000 Well no. The article you posted, which doesn't provide any data or source to any actual study, just says some researchers EXTRAPOLATED polling data, and they themselves say it is NOT plausible for non-citizen votes to account for all of Clinton's margin. So not only is this hardly anything to base a conclusion off of, the conclusion that is arrived at is that Clinton still won the popular vote. Focusing on voter fraud after winning is a weird tack to take, especially when the president has a 36% approval rating, so many people would enjoy a revote.

MicroBerto 10y ago
Focusing on voter fraud is critical to sovereignty, especially with future elections coming up. A nation needs strict voting laws or it is not a nation. Besides non-citizens voting, there were also multiple votes across county and state lines as well as dead people voting. So I'm not just blaming illegal aliens. Ultimately, this argument is not going to go anywhere, so how about this: How much money would you like to bet, that IF there is a voter fraud investigation, there were over 2,868,520 fraudulent votes cast across the nation? Approval ratings are far greater than 36% already BTW.
- therealdrag0 10y ago
  I agree that strict voting is important. I'm just waiting for evidence of widespread fraud before passing judgment. Most recounts end up with different numbers just due to human error. This is "expected", and that should be fixed.I just read the book "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" and he mentions that there was an election in Washington State that was recounted 4 times with different outcomes each time. That's crazy. And as far as we know nothing to do with malicious intent. > How much money would you like to bet... I wouldn't bet any money because I have no idea. I assume there is some baseline level of fraud in most elections. It wouldn't surprise me if there is SOME fraud, but as most of the hullabaloo around fraud seems much more ideological than evidence based, I have no idea what to actually expect.
- grzm 10y ago
  Voter fraud is just one issue with respect to voting integrity. Easy-to-use and understand, verifiable voting procedures are very important as well. The 2000 presidential election made that abundantly clear.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]