• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Trump: Dems favorability down to 31%! All time low! Sad!

GAY Trump Supporter Beaten Unconscious on Austin, Texas Street After He Pulls Out Trump Lighter
Scott Sauter: I lit up a cigarette and pulled out my lighter which has a picture of Donald Trump on it, a man approached me after noticing the lighter. He said ‘You’re in Austin. You are actually pulling a Donald Trump Lighter?! You don’t think that’s a big deal?’ I told him that I support our president. That’s when things got crazy. He became verbally aggressive. He started swearing, telling me that Austin is mostly Hispanic. It escalated from there, he stole my lighter and then he started beating the living sh*t out of me.
TGP: You didn’t throw the first punch or anything? This man attacked you just for supporting the President?
Scott: I wasn’t being aggressive at all. He grabbed my lighter, took it from me and then he started berating me. I told him that I support our president and I believe in his policies. That’s when he started hitting me.
TGP: What did this man look like?
Scott: It was an African American man… the police came when I was on the ground knocked unconscious. My head was busted open. I couldn’t find my glasses. I could barely speak because my mouth was so swollen. I had to just get back to my apartment… That’s what you get for being a gay conservative.
TGP: That’s a nightmare. Have you heard any more about the police investigation?
Scott: So far it’s all pending. They aren’t sure if it’s a hate crime.
TGP: I’d go so far as to say that its a double hate crime. Not only are you gay – which I know is liberal identity politics – but more importantly you’re conservative. And right now hate crimes against conservatives are on the rise. Did he take anything from you?
Scott: Just my trump lighter, and my glasses.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/gay-trump-supporter-beaten/
C3vUsKDXAAEzZDC.jpg
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Hillary *could have received more than 800,000 votes from non-citizens.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
Click to expand...

in other news, I could have won the lottery many, many times

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.
Click to expand...
 
Serious question. What would most of you set the O/U at for ACTUAL votes cast illegally, by the current definition of the law (not the Trump definition, which is pretty clear he doesn't understand the law/know the law/or care about the actual law)?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Serious question. What would most of you set the O/U at for ACTUAL votes cast illegally, by the current definition of the law (not the Trump definition, which is pretty clear he doesn't understand the law/know the law/or care about the actual law)?
Click to expand...

hard to say, but it is pretty damn easy to register, even from far away
 
If there are that many people voting illegally shouldn't there be a pretty easy report to check to see? There should be names available, voter records available, and many other different ways to show that non-citizens voted--Gregg Phillips should be able to say "look at this" instead of just claiming that 3M voted.

Can we please, please, just use our logic for once and try to see literally any tangible evidence that this many people voted illegally (by definition of the current law).
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Serious question. What would most of you set the O/U at for ACTUAL votes cast illegally, by the current definition of the law (not the Trump definition, which is pretty clear he doesn't understand the law/know the law/or care about the actual law)?
Click to expand...

Serious answer about non-citizens' votes- if it reached 100 I'd be shocked. How many people would risk deportation to vote? The concept that 800,000 did had to be drug induced.
 
sailordeac said:
so apparently the thing that never happens actually happens a lot
Click to expand...

It's not that hard to do some damn research and basic fact-checking before just latching on to something like this. Jesse Richman himself wrote to the Washington Times and said it's deceptive. That study was done in December of 2014, 23 months before the 2016 Presidential Election, and the 6.4 were extrapolations based on incorrect numbers from the 2008 election:

I do not support the Washington Times piece

Dear Washington Times,

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

Best Regards,

Jesse Richman
Click to expand...

I know you are just going to discredit Scopes as a "liberal rag", but at least read the damn article.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-800000-votes-non-citizens/

The final conclusion:

Such errors are infrequent, but they happen in any survey. In this case, they were crucial, because Richman and his colleagues saw the very small number of people who answered that they were “immigrant non-citizens,” and extrapolated that (inaccurate) number to the U.S. population as a whole.

How do we know that some people give an inaccurate response to this question? Well, we actually took 19,000 respondents from one of the surveys that Richman used (the 2010 study) and we interviewed them again in 2012. A total of 121 of the 19,000 respondents (.64 percent) identified themselves as immigrant non-citizens when they first answered the survey in 2010. However, when asked the question again in 2012, 36 of the 121 selected a different response, indicating that they were citizens. Even more telling was this: 20 respondents identified themselves as citizens in 2010 but then in 2012 changed their answers to indicate that they were non-citizens. It is highly unrealistic to go from being a citizen in 2010 to a non-citizen in 2012, which provides even stronger evidence that some people were providing incorrect responses to this question for idiosyncratic reasons.

Correcting for those errors, says Schaffner, the likely number of non-citizen voters in the 2016 election turns out to be not 5 million, nor 3 million, nor even 800,000, but zero.
Click to expand...

Here's another refutation of this by a Cooperative Congressional Election Study pollster http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces...ng-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys:

This problem arises because the survey was not designed to sample non-citizens, and the non-citizen category in the citizenship question is included for completeness and to identify those respondents who might be non-citizens. We expect that most of that group are in fact non-citizens (85 of 105), but the very low level of misclassification of citizens, who comprise 97.4 percent of the sample, means that we expect that 19 “non-citizen” respondents (16.5 percent of all reported non-citizens) are citizens who are misclassified. And, those misclassified people can readily account for the observed vote among those who reported that they are non-citizens.

Stepping back from the immediate question of whether the CCES in fact shows a low rate of voting among non-citizens, our analysis carries a much broader lesson and caution about the analysis of big databases to study low frequency characteristics and behaviors. Very low levels of measurement error are easily tolerated in samples of 1,000 to 2,000 persons. But in very large sample surveys, classification errors in a high-frequency category can readily contaminate a lowfrequency category, such as non-citizens. As a result, researchers may draw incorrect inferences concerning the behavior of relatively rare individuals in a population when there is even a very low level of misclassification.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Serious answer about non-citizens' votes- if it reached 100 I'd be shocked. How many people would risk deportation to vote? The concept that 800,000 did had to be drug induced.
Click to expand...

Nope. Somebody wrote it on the internet, so Sailor will believe it if it fits his or Dear Leader's narrative -- that is all the "facts" he needs.
 
I'd be pretty surprised if there was not a considerable amount of voting fraud going on in the US, to me it has little to do with dems or pubs, the stakes are just too high and the fraud is just too easy,

how one could effectively study and make clear determinations is a different matter, but simply to deny that voter fraud exists is naive and unrealistic
 
sailordeac said:
I'd be pretty surprised if there was not a considerable amount of voting fraud going on in the US, to me it has little to do with dems or pubs, the stakes are just too high and the fraud is just too easy,

how one could effectively study and make clear determinations is a different matter, but simply to deny that voter fraud exists is naive and unrealistic
Click to expand...

Then prove it. If it's so easy to show that there is voter fraud then I want to see a 100% determination of truth that it is occurring, and occurring at high rates.

If it's "naive and unrealistic" to think that it doesn't exist then give me some damn proof. There should be tons of cases out there that are easy to point to if it's so frequent.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Then prove it. If it's so easy to show that there is voter fraud then I want to see a 100% determination of truth that it is occurring, and occurring at high rates.

If it's "naive and unrealistic" to think that it doesn't exist then give me some damn proof. There should be tons of cases out there that are easy to point to if it's so frequent.
Click to expand...

It looks like we will have some hearings looking into it. If we do, you will get your 100% proof. I just hope you remember how much in denial you were when you get it.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
It looks like we will have some hearings looking into it. If we do, you will get your 100% proof. I just hope you remember how much in denial you were when you get it.
Click to expand...

How hard can it be to prove this without hearings? If there are anywhere between 800,000 to 5 million votes (literally 4% of all the votes in the 2016 GE) being cast illegally then there should be tons of cases already figured out by Republicans, Democrats, and independently run agencies that monitor these things.
 
Think rationally for a minute, PA was the closest state. It had about a 12,000 vote difference. Let's say there were 6000 fraudulent votes. First of all you'd have to find at least 6000 people willing to risk jail and fines to commit fraud. This would take a lot of money, a lot of manpower and a lot of time to coordinate.

To think no one would get caught would mean involving local and federal law enforcement and that no one would see a payday in selling the story.

Now think about getting this number even up to the 800,000 bullshit. And it's for voting and getting people to vote your way. Hell, try to get ten people to keep the same secret.

Only a crazy person or someone being paid big money would ever believe or postulate such an occurrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top