2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

His father was not in politics.

Politics needs new blood, not the same old blood, doing the same old thing, which is usually to benefit themselves.
Not saying Trump is not in it to benefit himself, but he is new blood.

Not blood worth having.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing the Clintons to the Kims? Take a deep breath and think about this one.



The Bush family is a political dynasty going back to Taft, if not further.

I honestly don't see how you can compare the Clinton family to the Bush dynasty. One generation of Clintons have been elected to office. As far as I know Chelsea hasn't run for office.

Are they not political dynasties?

Chelsea will if she has to get a proper job and not live off the foundation.

Zubeneschamali

gosplan wrote: »

But overall, the GOP needs to unify behind someone that doesn't drive away minority groups and women.

Cruz wouldn't drive away minorities and women anymore than he would repulse men, dogs, cats and farm animals.

Good for the Alligator vote, though.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

"small loan of a million dollars"

The email between Doug Band and John Podesta about being paid for campaigning and Chelsea also having her paid for by the Foundation?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910746/Chelsea-Clinton-used-Foundation-money-fund-wedding-according-new-Wikileaks-emails.html

<li class="">A new chain of Wikileaks emails alleges Chelsea Clinton used resources from the Clinton Foundation for her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky<li class="">An email from Doug Band, a former top aide to president Bill Clinton and a former Clinton Global Initiative board member, complains about Chelsea <li class="">Says she was conducting internal investigating of money within the Clinton Foundation and told George W Bush's daughters this information<li class="">Band says this is conflict of interest because Chelsea allegedly used resources for her wedding<li class="">It is estimated the cost of Chelsea Clinton's wedding was about $3 million, but it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used<li class="">Other emails from Band show him slamming Mezvinsky and saying Chelsea Clinton 'goes to daddy' to get her way on plans

Seems all these foundations are personal slush funds whether it is Trump or the Clintons.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

The email between Doug Band and John Podesta about being paid for campaigning and Chelsea also having her paid for by the Foundation?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910746/Chelsea-Clinton-used-Foundation-money-fund-wedding-according-new-Wikileaks-emails.html

<li class="">A new chain of Wikileaks emails alleges Chelsea Clinton used resources from the Clinton Foundation for her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky<li class="">An email from Doug Band, a former top aide to president Bill Clinton and a former Clinton Global Initiative board member, complains about Chelsea <li class="">Says she was conducting internal investigating of money within the Clinton Foundation and told George W Bush's daughters this information<li class="">Band says this is conflict of interest because Chelsea allegedly used resources for her wedding<li class="">It is estimated the cost of Chelsea Clinton's wedding was about $3 million, but it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used<li class="">Other emails from Band show him slamming Mezvinsky and saying Chelsea Clinton 'goes to daddy' to get her way on plans

Seems all these foundations are personal slush funds whether it is Trump or the Clintons.

I know Dave Ramsey puts all his earnings into a Living Trust but that's quite different.. The Clinton foundation is a 501c3

http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/How_to_Lose_Your_Tax_Exempt_Status.shtml

At worst, it sounds like the IRS could audit the foundation and they could lose their tax-exempt status. Not particularly criminal offenses in nature.

However the Clintons dont just have one Trust http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-17/wealthy-clintons-use-trusts-to-limit-estate-tax-they-back and I'm not entirely convinced they would have used 501c3 funds to do what they could very well clearly do from any other number of funds they own privately, and quite legally.

Overheal

'We need new blood in Washington' - as Trump eyes Newt Gingrich and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani for Secretary of State and Attorney General. Yikes.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-donald-trump-eyeing-giuliani-for-ag-gingrich-for-secretary-of-state/

marienbad

Overheal wrote: »

'We need new blood in Washington' - as Trump eyes Newt Gingrich and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani for Secretary of State and Attorney General. Yikes.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-donald-trump-eyeing-giuliani-for-ag-gingrich-for-secretary-of-state/

You couldn't make this stuff up !

Thankfully just one day left and it looks like sanity will prevail after all.

gosplan

RobertKK wrote: »

The email between Doug Band and John Podesta about being paid for campaigning and Chelsea also having her paid for by the Foundation?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910746/Chelsea-Clinton-used-Foundation-money-fund-wedding-according-new-Wikileaks-emails.html

<li class="">A new chain of Wikileaks emails alleges Chelsea Clinton used resources from the Clinton Foundation for her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky<li class="">An email from Doug Band, a former top aide to president Bill Clinton and a former Clinton Global Initiative board member, complains about Chelsea <li class="">Says she was conducting internal investigating of money within the Clinton Foundation and told George W Bush's daughters this information<li class="">Band says this is conflict of interest because Chelsea allegedly used resources for her wedding<li class="">It is estimated the cost of Chelsea Clinton's wedding was about $3 million, but it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used<li class="">Other emails from Band show him slamming Mezvinsky and saying Chelsea Clinton 'goes to daddy' to get her way on plans

Seems all these foundations are personal slush funds whether it is Trump or the Clintons.

Hmmmm,

I see nothing there.

Chelsea was involved with foundation, Chelsea had an expensive wedding = foundation paid for it???

Seems a bit more 2+2 = lock her up!!

brickmauser

gosplan wrote: »

Epstein:

Do you think it's possible that he was just a rich guy with lots of ties to important people. I mean was everyone with a connection to him implicit in peadophile rings? Because after all

"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump once said about the convicted sex offender. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

And

Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.

Note I'm not accusing Trunp of anything. You should be right now though given the evidence should be enough for you.

If Trump is screwing kids along with Clinton then sling him in the furnace with the rest of them.

Overheal

"it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used"

Key point.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

"it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used"

Key point.

Is there a clause in 501c3 status that allows for a spoiled brat’s wedding and lifestyle maintenance fund?

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

The black community also have Stockholm syndrome. Given it was the Republicans who outlawed slavery, and it was Democrats who wanted to keep it.
It would be like Irish people supporting the Whig government/party who helped starve us.

The whole civil rights thing passed you by?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Are they not political dynasties?

Chelsea will if she has to get a proper job and not live off the foundation.

The Bush dynasty, yes. The Kim dynasty, yes. The 2 are not analogous though.

The Clinton dynasty, no. A dynasty implies multiple generations.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

A self entitled rich girl, who has benefited from the status of her parents and who seemingly has been a charity case.

So pretty much a younger Trump?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Is there a clause in 501c3 status that allows for a spoiled brat’s wedding and lifestyle maintenance fund?

No but referring to the post you just quoted, there are no facts yet on the ground about how much, if any money from the 501c3 went to her wedding. Even if they did, it means simply that the Foundation should lose its tax-exempt status. If that weren't the case every time a pastor bought a new car a church would be shut down and the workers therein jailed, but Mega-Churches are proof-perfect that 501c3 organizations are rife with tolerated abuse. Unlike the case of a megachurch though the Clintons had other funding vehicles to finance a wedding so I don't know why they would have so blatantly violated the aims of the 501c3 for that purpose. Hence I remain skeptical thats actually the case.

K-9

B0jangles wrote: »

The Latino vote in FL is up 129% since 2012

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/latinos-voter-turnout-early-voting-2016-election/

Nationally Clinton has a 50 point lead with Latino voters over Trump

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-latino-support-for-hillary-clinton-at-1478451714-htmlstory.html



And according to someone I know who works in US polling, Latino voters tend to get overlooked in most polls.

Could be the deciding factor in Nevada and possibly Florida, which would mean Trump's comments about Mexicans and Latinos lost him the election.

The Sunday Times were reporting Dems are worried African American numbers are down from 012, about 7% was the figure quoted IIRC.

Overheal

Apt time for a throwback to this digestable content on 501c3 abuses

TheOven

Overheal wrote: »

'We need new blood in Washington' - as Trump eyes Newt Gingrich and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani for Secretary of State and Attorney General. Yikes.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-donald-trump-eyeing-giuliani-for-ag-gingrich-for-secretary-of-state/

What about Christie? Has trump thrown him with the Russians yet or is he still around waiting for his reward?

TheDoctor

538 flips Nevada, Florida and NC back to Clinton.

Be doing well to get 50/50 this time round.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Is there a clause in 501c3 status that allows for a spoiled brat’s wedding and lifestyle maintenance fund?

Probably not! But as Overheal quoted, it's unclear if anything untoward was done.

At this stage so much outlandish claims have been made about the emails and the Foundation it is very hard to take them seriously. If there was something explosive in them it would be out by now, sure we've been told for months the big one was coming.

It's starting to look conservatives interested in the emails just got strung along spending days and months trying to find the smoking bomb! Even Anonymous got in on the act, though maybe that was the point? It was a parody of Wikileaks?

TheDoctor

When is Wikileaks going to have the big reveal on her emails?

Itssoeasy

I for one am delighted that the election is tomorrow and over(I know people will say this is just the beginning) as I can't listen to more negative stuff I really can't, but I hope that as many amercan voters(including our American posters) go and vote regardless of who they vote for.

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

When is Wikileaks going to have the big reveal on her emails?

There in all probability isn't one.

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

538 flips Nevada, Florida and NC back to Clinton.

Be doing well to get 50/50 this time round.

The median projection is simply oscillating at the 50/50 mark and has for a couple days: Florida is Dem by 0.2% North Carolina by 0.0% Nevada by 0.7%. Ohio is Republican by 1.9%.

Sofa Spud

K-9 wrote: »

Could be the deciding factor in Nevada and possibly Florida, which would mean Trump's comments about Mexicans and Latinos lost him the election.

The Sunday Times were reporting Dems are worried African American numbers are down from 012, about 7% was the figure quoted IIRC.

CNN reporting the same numbers and mentioned NC seeing the same level of turnout too - Latino analyst said is was as much, if not more, an anti-Trump vote than a pro-Hillary vote...

Overheal

COMPLETE AND UTTER SHOCK AND AWE AS OBAMA DID NOT IN FACT SAY ILLEGALS COULD VOTE. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-business-deceptively-edits-obama-interview-to-falsely-claim-he-told-illegal-immigrants-to-vote/

/coffee

The Heavily Edited Exchange wrote:

HOST GINA RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true… The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential…

The Actual Exchange wrote:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

aloyisious

A Trump rally musician supporting act gives his understanding of the "Locker-room talk" message..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi48dLNlJfQAhVCGsAKHX-PAzYQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3911838%2FTed-Nugent-grabs-crotch-Trump-rally.html&usg=AFQjCNHbkLKFBIAJx7V2ncyOsVBpRPJZLQ

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Probably not! But as Overheal quoted, it's unclear if anything untoward was done.

At this stage so much outlandish claims have been made about the emails and the Foundation it is very hard to take them seriously. If there was something explosive in them it would be out by now, sure we've been told for months the big one was coming.

It's starting to look conservatives interested in the emails just got strung along spending days and months trying to find the smoking bomb! Even Anonymous got in on the act, though maybe that was the point? It was a parody of Wikileaks?

Hillary made this election a referendum and the person and not policies as soon as we went into the general election. It’s called fighting fire with fire. Everything is fair game. I have yet to see any condemnation of all the lies, innuendoes and exaggerations about Trump chastised. And I have yet to see one of the Wikileaks emails classified as fake.

Paleface

I really like Ted Nugent as a musician but he's a complete idiot when it comes to politics!

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

COMPLETE AND UTTER SHOCK AND AWE AS OBAMA DID NOT IN FACT SAY ILLEGALS COULD VOTE. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-business-deceptively-edits-obama-interview-to-falsely-claim-he-told-illegal-immigrants-to-vote/

/coffee

The girl was talking about illegals voting. Obama should simply have said illegals can't vote.... End of story!

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

COMPLETE AND UTTER SHOCK AND AWE AS OBAMA DID NOT IN FACT SAY ILLEGALS COULD VOTE. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMING?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-business-deceptively-edits-obama-interview-to-falsely-claim-he-told-illegal-immigrants-to-vote/

/coffee

So she's an actual US citizen who was asking about other people who don't have her legal documented citizens status..... Nothing new then in a tv whats-it misrepresenting the facts and pretending to be outraged. I'd be reasonably sure that he is fully aware of who can and can't vote in federal elections, as distinct from state elections where the states set their own rules.

A rest-day tomorrow, set's alarm clock for 11PM for results coverage

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The girl was talking about illegals voting. Obama should simply have said illegals can't vote.... End of story!

I see your willfully blind to the obvious. Alright then.

I have yet to see any condemnation of all the lies, innuendoes and exaggerations about Trump chastised.

Chastise away.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

I have yet to see any condemnation of all the lies, innuendoes and exaggerations about Trump chastised.

I saw George RR Martin commenting that he only saw floods of TV coverage in his state (New mexico) recently, and that there is a sharp contrast.

Trumps attack ads are all innuendo and exaggeration with horrible black-and-white photos of Hillary caught pulling faces, while Hillary's attack ads are simple videos of Trump talking.

In his own words.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I saw George RR Martin commenting that he only saw floods of TV coverage in his state (New mexico) recently, and that there is a sharp contrast.

Trumps attack ads are all innuendo and exaggeration with horrible black-and-white photos of Hillary caught pulling faces, while Hillary's attack ads are simple videos of Trump talking.

In his own words.

George RR Martin would probably kill them both off... In his own words.

K-9

Sofa Spud wrote: »

CNN reporting the same numbers and mentioned NC seeing the same level of turnout too - Latino analyst said is was as much, if not more, an anti-Trump vote than a pro-Hillary vote...

Seems to be, it will be record low Latino votes for Republicans.

I suppose it will be a matter of if that compensates for any lowering of the African American vote and if it does, where does Trump make up the gap Romney had 4 years ago.

Trump is already behind on the educated female vote, something Romney got about 56% last time out. Basically, it seems Trump is going to have to find a lot of white males to vote for him, who are mostly uneducated or old!

Btw that term educated and uneducated annoys me!

eire4

K-9 wrote: »

Seems to be, it will be record low Latino votes for Republicans.

I suppose it will be a matter of if that compensates for any lowering of the African American vote and if it does, where does Trump make up the gap Romney had 4 years ago.

Trump is already behind on the educated female vote, something Romney got about 56% last time out. Basically, it seems Trump is going to have to find a lot of white males to vote for him, who are mostly uneducated or old!

Btw that term educated and uneducated annoys me!

This is the first presidential election since the supreme court basically dismantled the voting rights act and that has lead to the massive surge in voter suppression efforts especially targeted at minorities so it will be interesting to see what the final Black turnout ends up being.

Sofa Spud

Amerika wrote: »

The girl was talking about illegals voting. Obama should simply have said illegals can't vote.... End of story!

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

I think him stating that 'when you vote, you are a citizen yourself' should be really clear, no?

B0jangles

How the hell can anyone work in IT and not know that you can compare two sets of files and automatically find any differences both quickly and easily?

All you got to do is compare your existing known files (in this case, the emails they have already checked) with the new set and scan for new or changed files.

Any half competent person could set this up in about 10 minutes.

More detail from Edward Snowden on how to run such a check:

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/795435387321655296

ECO_Mental

ScofflawIdiot wrote: »

It is funny how brainless people still believe FBI XD So they checked 650 000 emails in 8 days, 691 200 seconds and people actually buy this ...some people if not everyone should be taking mandatory IQ tests before taking a vote, and pass that test at some reasonable level...5-10% people would be entitled to vote then...

Type "classified" into the search bar of your Microsoft outlook and tell me how long that takes ????? I have 20,000 emails.... Mine doesn't take six weeks. Unless you have ZX Spectrum it takes 1-2 seconds. Now imagine an FBI supercomputer with specialist search software. Have you completed your IQ test recently?

That's why the Clinton people are pissed off because Comey could have checked the emails in days no need to write a stupid letter.

TheOven

Amerika wrote: »

The girl was talking about illegals voting. Obama should simply have said illegals can't vote.... End of story!

Previously....

Amerika wrote: »

I have yet to see any condemnation of all the lies, innuendoes and exaggerations about Trump chastised.

Better start chastising yourself.

hatrickpatrick

The real email scandal is not whether or not there was classified information, the real email scandal is that Clinton set up her private server for the specific purpose of evading freedom of information law - and that doing so is not a criminal offence.

Once again, the true villain is not the white collar criminal but the law which allows them to get away with what they have done.

It doesn't matter whether there was classified information or not - the very act of attempting to evade legally mandated transparency by moving her data beyond the reach of freedom of information requests is in itself corruption of the highest order, and should in my view have disqualified her from seeking nomination in the first place. It is a travesty that a politician deliberately trying to circumvent the law is not regarded as a criminal.

I would analogise it to a similar case at home. Alan Shatter violated data protection law by leaking information about Mick Wallace on national television - and yet even though he has been confirmed to have broken the law, it is not considered a criminal matter. Dafuq kind of society are we living in, in which violating the law and being considered a criminal are not one and the same? All violations of the law by public officials should be criminal matters, not just civil ones.

Amerika

Sofa Spud wrote: »

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

I think him stating that 'when you vote, you are a citizen yourself' should be really clear, no?

No. That would have to go under the assumption that if you vote you are a citizen. But we know that only citizens vote in our elections is a false statement. He would be a fool not to know that, and he's not a fool.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty

Nody

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The real email scandal is not whether or not there was classified information, the real email scandal is that Clinton set up her private server for the specific purpose of evading freedom of information law - and that doing so is not a criminal offence.

Once again, the true villain is not the white collar criminal but the law which allows them to get away with what they have done.

It doesn't matter whether there was classified information or not - the very act of attempting to evade legally mandated transparency by moving her data beyond the reach of freedom of information requests is in itself corruption of the highest order, and should in my view have disqualified her from seeking nomination in the first place. It is a travesty that a politician deliberately trying to circumvent the law is not regarded as a criminal

You mean exactly as Bush did for 2003 to 2009? While intentionally not saving 22 million e-mails and refused a Senate subpoena to disclose the e-mails? On a server run by the Republican party? While routing 95%+ of all e-mails through it including for the president, VP and their staff?

How about we impeach the Republican party and Bush first to set the example?

Sofa Spud

Amerika wrote: »

No. That would have to go under the assumption that if you vote you are a citizen. But we know that only citizens vote in our elections is a false statement. He would be a fool not to know that, and he's not a fool.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty

Fine, I'll bite - how is it that we should know that only citizens voting is a false statement?

Are you saying that illegal immigrants vote?
If so, how?
How does an illegal immigrant get a voting card?
How does an illegal immigrant become a registered voter, listed on the voter roll?

Some specific detail would be great....

hatrickpatrick

Nody wrote: »

You mean exactly as Bush did for 2003 to 2009? While intentionally not saving 22 million e-mails and refused a Senate subpoena to disclose the e-mails? On a server run by the Republican party? While routing 95%+ of all e-mails through it including for the president, VP and their staff?

How about we impeach the Republican party and Bush first to set the example?

By all means, yes. Both parties' establishments are utterly rotten to their cores, which is why I was and remain a Sanders advocate. Although I fear he'll be too old to contemplate going through this again, I hold on to some hope that he might challenge whoever wins this election for 2020, or that one of his endorsed candidates might.

Elizabeth Warren would make an incredible president, but she seems - understandably - to fear what will happen to congress with one less progressive voice there, if she were to win the presidency.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't think this story has been posted before, and after all that has come out I doubt it'll influence anyone very much but even so...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html



He quite literally gatecrashed a charity event for kids with HIV to get himself some media attention and didn't even bother to make a donation.

Donald Trump is a despicable human being.

This guy dug up a photo of Trump at the event - just look at him up there on the platform pretending to have given money to help kids with HIV/AIDS

https://twitter.com/ouijum/status/795701235747880960/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Champion of the Downtrodden : Donald J. Trump.

Amerika

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Fine, I'll bite - how is it that we should know that only citizens voting is a false statement?

Are you saying that illegal immigrants vote?
If so, how?
How does an illegal immigrant get a voting card?
How does an illegal immigrant become a registered voter, listed on the voter roll?

Some specific detail would be great....

Because how can 13-20 million illegals be in the US and survive? Many steal ID’s or use phony ID’s to get jobs, welfare and other social benefits. Voting is a simple process when you have a stolen or phony ID. And since they can not be deported or jailed under Obama, they have nothing to lose by voting illegally.

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/03/09/irs-encourages-illegal-immigrants-to-commit-identity-theft-and-refuses-to-inform-victims/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/illegals-border-fake-id/2015/01/08/id/617256/

Sofa Spud

Amerika wrote: »

Because how can 13-20 million illegals be in the US and survive? Many steal ID’s or use phony ID’s to get jobs, welfare and other social benefits. Voting is a simple process when you have a stolen or phony ID. And since they can not be deported or jailed under Obama, they have nothing to lose by voting illegally.

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/03/09/irs-encourages-illegal-immigrants-to-commit-identity-theft-and-refuses-to-inform-victims/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/illegals-border-fake-id/2015/01/08/id/617256/

Sorry, not buying it.

How does being in the US and surviving link to illegal voting?

How does having a fake ID enable you to vote, when you have to be registered to vote before actually going to the polling station to place your X?

How does having a stolen ID enable you to vote?
Why risk the double crime of having a stolen ID and also voting illegally?
Also, as per widely reported studies, they have found 31 cases in a billion - that a 1 followed by a lot of zero's - http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/07/31-in-a-billion-election-experts-report-shatter/200359

Sparks43

2 replies to say you are not replying.

Well played

On topic it's looking like Hillary has it now but still grabbing a few beers and snacks for the excitement.

Senate going red and they more then likely have the House of Representatives as well.

Lame duck springs to mind

First Up

Sofa Spud wrote:

How does having a stolen ID enable you to vote? Why risk the double crime of having a stolen ID and also voting illegally? Also, as per widely reported studies, they have found 31 cases in a billion - that a 1 followed by a lot of zero's -

Correct. The notion that an illegal would risk detection by being challenged at a polling station is absurd.
The illegals (Irish among them) will spend tomorrow working at their low paid jobs and hoping sanity prevails.