Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

White House says millions voted illegally last year

Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

25 Jan 2017, 3:41 pm

I believe a post of mine was deleted for some reason, why am I being censored?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

27 Jan 2017, 3:21 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Quote:
Somewhere between 38,000 and almost 2.8 million non-citizens voted in the 2008 elections, according to a study published in Electoral Studies journal in 2014.

Old Dominion University professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest, the study’s co-authors, concluded that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/study ... d-in-2008/

its definitely something that needs to be investigated

The issue is he claimed AS A FACT that enough voted illegally to cause Clinton to win the popular vote. If you make such bold claims you should have solid evidence. He has none. Apparently you a such a sheep follower of "dear leader" that you just automatically believe anything he says. You were more sane when you were a Ron Paul supporter. I don't know what happened. Maybe next year you will join ISIS. You're so prone to jumping onto ideological bandwagons.



Last edited by marshall on 27 Jan 2017, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

27 Jan 2017, 3:24 pm

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Some things I find interesting. People making mental illness diagnoses they are completely unqualified to make in their unending slew of leftist sensationalism.


Agreed. I am tired of the armchair diagnosing that has affected our politics, especially on a forum like ours.

Regardless of armchair psychological diagnosis, it's quite obvious that he is NOT a nice person at all. I think the proper word is a**hole. That the right apologizes for this baffles my mind.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

27 Jan 2017, 7:49 pm

marshall wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Quote:
Somewhere between 38,000 and almost 2.8 million non-citizens voted in the 2008 elections, according to a study published in Electoral Studies journal in 2014.

Old Dominion University professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest, the study’s co-authors, concluded that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/study ... d-in-2008/

its definitely something that needs to be investigated

The issue is he claimed AS A FACT that enough voted illegally to cause Clinton to win the popular vote. If you make such bold claims you should have solid evidence. He has none. Apparently you a such a sheep follower of "dear leader" that you just automatically believe anything he says. You were more sane when you were a Ron Paul supporter. I don't know what happened. Maybe next year you will join ISIS. You're so prone to jumping onto ideological bandwagons.


I've heard this type of statement a few times now on separate issues where the president drew a conclusion, and in none of those other occasions was he incorrect. I agree with you philosophically, but at the same time so far it appears he hasn't been in error. Since he's insisting on a full investigation to back up his conclusion, it looks like he's prepared to be proven wrong. But I think as with the other occasions, he has knowledge that he's using to draw conclusions.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

28 Jan 2017, 2:12 am

EzraS wrote:
I've heard this type of statement a few times now on separate issues where the president drew a conclusion, and in none of those other occasions was he incorrect. I agree with you philosophically, but at the same time so far it appears he hasn't been in error. Since he's insisting on a full investigation to back up his conclusion, it looks like he's prepared to be proven wrong. But I think as with the other occasions, he has knowledge that he's using to draw conclusions.

The thing is, whenever he is proven wrong you guys just forget about it and move on to the next thing. I think there is a scientific name for this type of cognitive bias. :roll:



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

28 Jan 2017, 6:22 pm

Claims, claims, but not rock solid proof.

There always is some illegal voting but not enough to affect the outcome of a national election.

In Chicago, the saying is, the dead vote early and often.

Mayor Daley of Chicago might have pulled a stunt in Illinois that threw the electoral vote from Nixon to Kennedy in 1960, but that has not been proven definitely.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

28 Jan 2017, 11:33 pm

marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I've heard this type of statement a few times now on separate issues where the president drew a conclusion, and in none of those other occasions was he incorrect. I agree with you philosophically, but at the same time so far it appears he hasn't been in error. Since he's insisting on a full investigation to back up his conclusion, it looks like he's prepared to be proven wrong. But I think as with the other occasions, he has knowledge that he's using to draw conclusions.

The thing is, whenever he is proven wrong you guys just forget about it and move on to the next thing. I think there is a scientific name for this type of cognitive bias. :roll:


Not "you guys". I operate independently and strive to be objective. Show me objectively where he drew a similar conclusion and was wrong and I'll acknowledge it.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Jan 2017, 5:25 am

EzraS wrote:
marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I've heard this type of statement a few times now on separate issues where the president drew a conclusion, and in none of those other occasions was he incorrect. I agree with you philosophically, but at the same time so far it appears he hasn't been in error. Since he's insisting on a full investigation to back up his conclusion, it looks like he's prepared to be proven wrong. But I think as with the other occasions, he has knowledge that he's using to draw conclusions.

The thing is, whenever he is proven wrong you guys just forget about it and move on to the next thing. I think there is a scientific name for this type of cognitive bias. :roll:


Not "you guys". I operate independently and strive to be objective. Show me objectively where he drew a similar conclusion and was wrong and I'll acknowledge it.

He was wrong about the crowd size at his inauguration. You don't give a s**t. He lies, it doesn't matter because you're a loyal partisan.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

29 Jan 2017, 5:45 am

marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I've heard this type of statement a few times now on separate issues where the president drew a conclusion, and in none of those other occasions was he incorrect. I agree with you philosophically, but at the same time so far it appears he hasn't been in error. Since he's insisting on a full investigation to back up his conclusion, it looks like he's prepared to be proven wrong. But I think as with the other occasions, he has knowledge that he's using to draw conclusions.

The thing is, whenever he is proven wrong you guys just forget about it and move on to the next thing. I think there is a scientific name for this type of cognitive bias. :roll:


Not "you guys". I operate independently and strive to be objective. Show me objectively where he drew a similar conclusion and was wrong and I'll acknowledge it.

He was wrong about the crowd size at his inauguration. You don't give a s**t. He lies, it doesn't matter because you're a loyal partisan.


Nope, not loyal just objective. If was old enough I would have voted for Clinton but would have preferred Sanders. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I might be a Libertarian, not sure yet. I like to challenge views regarding Trump instead of just going with the flow of popular opinion. I want to evaluate the person on my own terms. I only started getting interested in politics a few months ago. That's some actual information about me, unless you want to just keep jumping to conclusions and snapping at me.