Non Citizens are Voting, it's no longer even questionable

[Richard_Nielsen]

Read what you just typed. NON citizens. Now lets look closely at what most of California calls a legal NON citizen.

[reflechissez]

@Richard_Nielsen

Read what you just typed. NON citizens. Now lets look closely at what most of California calls a legal NON citizen.

What point are you trying to make?

[WildRose]

Since there is no database of legal US Citizens how are they going to differentiate?

[Richard_Nielsen]

It is simple first look at it from this perspective, NON citizens allowed to vote. Legal or illegal who the hell even suggests that sort of thing? Next, Sanctuary cities, so if we don’t care if they are legal or not, who is even going to bother to check if they are legal when they register? Seriously? California should not even be allowed in the next Federal election.

[Richard_Nielsen]

Straws, if you have plastic straw, no voting…

[WildRose]

Unless an illegal has been preciously deported there is no record of them being in the US illegally so how are they going to differentiate between legal/illegal aliens?

Will their registration come with a “local elections only” statement on it?

[MarkyS]

@mobulis

@MarkyS

Of course we know it is a problem.

I just recently answered the challenge that any election was WON by 0.0004 percent of the vote - the figure that SOME want to believe is the actual percentage of fraud.

In fact the 2000 presidential election was WON by 0.000004 percent of the vote - FAR LESS.

The point is that when SO FEW votes can swing a presidential election DO NOT tell me that because we cannot know for sure there are millions of fraudulent votes we needn’t worry about a few thousand or even a few hundred. We need to worry about EVERY fraudulent vote - especially given it COULD be hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Fraudulent votes are ALWAYS a problem - ask anyone who has ever lost any election by a few votes - or even just 1.

M

How do you know its a problem?

Can you not READ what I just said?

If we have ANY fraudulent votes it can affect an election. We already KNOW that indeed we have fraudulent votes. We just do not know how many we have.

We therefore are obligated to do all we can to keep them as FEW as we possibly can.

M

[mobulis]

@MarkyS

@mobulis

@MarkyS

Of course we know it is a problem.

I just recently answered the challenge that any election was WON by 0.0004 percent of the vote - the figure that SOME want to believe is the actual percentage of fraud.

In fact the 2000 presidential election was WON by 0.000004 percent of the vote - FAR LESS.

The point is that when SO FEW votes can swing a presidential election DO NOT tell me that because we cannot know for sure there are millions of fraudulent votes we needn’t worry about a few thousand or even a few hundred. We need to worry about EVERY fraudulent vote - especially given it COULD be hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Fraudulent votes are ALWAYS a problem - ask anyone who has ever lost any election by a few votes - or even just 1.

M

How do you know its a problem?

Can you not READ what I just said?

If we have ANY fraudulent votes it can affect an election. We already KNOW that indeed we have fraudulent votes. We just do not know how many we have.

We therefore are obligated to do all we can to keep them as FEW as we possibly can.

M

And therefore don’t know if its a problem.

[WildRose]

And again we know it happens, it isn’t even arguable so we know it is a problem. Even one illegal vote is a problem.

[Richard_Nielsen]

My car is making a weird noise, but its not really that loud so it must not be a problem… well except it is loud, but well it must not be a problem

[MarkyS]

@mobulis

@MarkyS

@mobulis

@MarkyS

Of course we know it is a problem.

I just recently answered the challenge that any election was WON by 0.0004 percent of the vote - the figure that SOME want to believe is the actual percentage of fraud.

In fact the 2000 presidential election was WON by 0.000004 percent of the vote - FAR LESS.

The point is that when SO FEW votes can swing a presidential election DO NOT tell me that because we cannot know for sure there are millions of fraudulent votes we needn’t worry about a few thousand or even a few hundred. We need to worry about EVERY fraudulent vote - especially given it COULD be hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Fraudulent votes are ALWAYS a problem - ask anyone who has ever lost any election by a few votes - or even just 1.

M

How do you know its a problem?

Can you not READ what I just said?

If we have ANY fraudulent votes it can affect an election. We already KNOW that indeed we have fraudulent votes. We just do not know how many we have.

We therefore are obligated to do all we can to keep them as FEW as we possibly can.

M

And therefore don’t know if its a problem.

It is a problem that the system allows even ONE fraudulent vote because it means that there can be more than one or more than a hundred or more than a thousand. We cannot know the EXTENT.

We therefore have to assume the worst and combat it as if it is the worst. To do anything less is to allow for the possibility of the worst and accept it.

We cannot do that.

M

[Richard_Nielsen]

Oh no MarkyS you don’t get it, its all good as long as all them votes go left…

[reflechissez]

@Richard_Nielsen

It is simple first look at it from this perspective, NON citizens allowed to vote. Legal or illegal who the hell even suggests that sort of thing? Next, Sanctuary cities, so if we don’t care if they are legal or not, who is even going to bother to check if they are legal when they register? Seriously? California should not even be allowed in the next Federal election.

That’s what I said: legal, non-citizens.

[Yakshi]

@MarkyS

It is a problem that the system allows even ONE fraudulent vote

That is patently ridiculous.

[wiley8425]

No, what’s patently ridiculous is knowing for a fact that there are indeed fraudulent votes and stating there isn’t a problem.

[WildRose]

@wiley8425

No, what’s patently ridiculous is knowing for a fact that there are indeed fraudulent votes and stating there isn’t a problem.

It’s not a problem for those who believe they are benefiting from them.

[Yakshi]

@wiley8425

No, what’s patently ridiculous is knowing for a fact that there are indeed fraudulent votes and stating there isn’t a problem.

Just about economist would say that if there really were just one fraudulent vote, then the costs required to fix the problem aren’t worth it.

It’s a ridiculous notion.

[MarkyS]

@Yakshi

@MarkyS

It is a problem that the system allows even ONE fraudulent vote

That is patently ridiculous.

Read the REST of what I said, instead of taking it out of context.

A system that ALLOWS even one fraudulent vote CAN ALSO ALLOW hundreds, thousands and millions. We cannot know how many it is allowing. So, It is a question of how much we try to stop it - not IF we should try at all.

At the moment we are not trying enough.

M

[Yakshi]

Yeah, I read what you said the first time. Allowing one transgression does not automatically add hundreds or thousands.

Your slippery-slope argument is ridiculous.

[MarkyS]

@Yakshi

Yeah, I read what you said the first time. Allowing one transgression does not automatically add hundreds or thousands.

Your slippery-slope argument is ridiculous.

Your argument seems to be that because one is allowed ONLY ONE is there.

AGAIN, we cannot KNOW how many fraudulent votes are there. There can be one or two or there can be millions or ANYWHERE in between.

We need to set up a system that takes in that whole range of possibilities and tries to stop all of it. You can’t say, there is not enough of a problem because WE DO NOT KNOW how big the problem is. We only know under the current system the problem can be ANY number. The system allows for any number.

We are therefore obligated to ACT as if the the problem is huge. It might VERY WELL BE.

What if it is HUGE but you have acted as if it isn’t?

M