Trump won’t commit to accepting election results if he loses

[jg121783 3,907]

No one has addressed the fact that the Clinton campaign is suggesting if Trump wins it is because the Russians hacked it or that we should be worried about the Russians hacking our election. It's okay for Hillary but not for Trump I guess.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Even one case (though there are many) is enough reason for someone to reserve judgement until the election actually happens. It is absurd to demand that someone endorse something that hasn't even happened yet.

What is absurd is to take the facts and twist them into a made up boogey man in voter fraud as a way to explain away a political loss. It's absurd to read the list of proven cases of voter fraud in the US and come to the conclusion that there is a histroy of voter fraud in this country. You're right, the information is out there, whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.

No one has addressed the fact that the Clinton campaign is suggesting if Trump wins it is because the Russians hacked it or that we should be worried about the Russians hacking our election. It's okay for Hillary but not for Trump I guess.

Perhaps no one is addressing it, because no one thinks it's true.

[smilesammich 10,727]

has the clinton campaign said that russia might hack 'the election' or did they say russia might have been behind the dnc's hacking? asking for a friend.

[Teddy B 17,251]

my take is that trump supporters are super angry and therefore, super loud. most people voting for hillary aren't enthusiastic about her or the democratic party as a whole right now..so they're just going to quietly cast their votes to keep end times at bay. although i do i remember quite a few hand painted pickups/billboards/signs for romney and mccain and bush and/or anti obummer and mooshell.

oooo oooo, me first me first !!!!!

POW.

I'm not really a Hillary supporter but I will be voting for her. Right now I'm having a really fun and entertaining time watching the Trump supporters that are still holding on, twist themselves into a pretzel trying to defend the ridiculous and insane things Trump has said. I think most people are laying low this election, except for the most vocal supporters (who I find are mostly for Trump).

[millefleur 5,037]

has the clinton campaign said that russia might hack 'the election' or did they say russia might have been behind the dnc's hacking? asking for a friend.

The Russians most likely have sophisticated enough tech to hack the DNC. Hacking the election, though? I really don't see how that's possible without some kind of Manchurian Candidate/on-the-ground force of infiltrators actually physically sabotaging something.

If the DNC's data was so badly secured that Russian intelligence was able to hack them, makes me wonder why the US spends billions on the NSA and defense and they couldn't manage to keep the hackers out. It reflects badly on the NSA/department of defense. Hillary can blame the Russians all she wants, but why there wasn't tighter security is anyone's guess.

Edited October 20, 2016 by millefleur

[jg121783 3,907]

I would suggest that some of you here watch a documentary that aired on HBO years ago called "hacking democracy" before you say election fraud or voter fraud doesn't exist and never existed. It's funny Obama said there is no such thing as election fraud and elections are run at the local level. Yet he is putting Federal election monitors in place to watch for fraud he says doesn't exist.

[Teddy B 17,251]

has the clinton campaign said that russia might hack 'the election' or did they say russia might have been behind the dnc's hacking? asking for a friend.

It seems we're throwing facts out the window completely today, so anything close to the truth is acceptable.

You're correct btw.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Teddy B

[Dashinka 23,261]

I would suggest that some of you here watch a documentary that aired on HBO years ago called "hacking democracy" before you say election fraud or voter fraud doesn't exist and never existed. It's funny Obama said there is no such thing as election fraud and elections are run at the local level. Yet he is putting Federal election monitors in place to watch for fraud he says doesn't exist.

Jimmy Carter coming to an election booth near you. I mean he did verify the election in Venezuela.

[Rob L 3,811]

It must be where I live. If I look up and out the window from my desk, I can see the entirety of our street. We are in a cul-de-sac and are at the bottom of it. There are 16 houses, and there are 22 Trump signs. When I go into town, about 15 minutes from here, I see Trump signs, all the way in, and once I get to town. I have actually yet to see a Hillary sign, anywhere around here. I would have thought at being AR, and home to the Clintons and all that, the place would be littered with them.

Including the trip we made at the end of summer, from AR to WA, through MO, SD, MT, WY and into Canada, and back, the only sign of any type I saw was a bumper sticker with her name on it, and that read Hillary for Jail 2016.

America has a long history of voter fraud. I don't blame Donald for waiting.

When my Husband first got home after transplant, I took him to the local poll, in his wheelchair. After checking him off the list, and getting him into the queue waiting to vote I took him to the machine and went to stand near the door while he did his thing. I got yelled at, I was told I must exercise my right to vote. They were very vocal I must say, but I finnally managed to get them to understand I haven't the right to vote, and why. From all down the line behind me, I heard people calling out:

You could vote if you were a Democrat.

You could vote if you were dead, possibly several times.

You could vote if you were a dog.

The other thing I remember from that first time at the polls, where the signs, and the people standing out in front, and on the street, waving signs for both parties. Where I came from, those had to be off the streets, off the lawns, off the telephone poles or other hoardings days before the election. Amazing. I'll be taking him this year, as he doesn't drive any longer, and I will be interested to see what happens this time.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

September 1, 2016

[Download PDF]

Sensationalist claims have circulated this election season about the extent of voter fraud, with some politicians going so far as to tell voters to fear that this November’s election will be “rigged.” Because electoral integrity is one of the elements necessary to making America the greatest democracy in the world, claims like this garner media attention, and frighten and concern voters. But putting rhetoric aside to look at the facts makes clear that fraud by voters at the polls is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election.

Studies Agree: Impersonation Fraud by Voters Very Rarely Happens

• The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.00004 percent and 0.0009 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”
• A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”
• A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.
• Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016.

Courts Agree: Fraud by Voters at the Polls is Nearly Non-Existent

• The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion finding that Texas’s strict photo ID law is racially discriminatory, noted that there were “only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade” before Texas passed its law.
• In its opinion striking down North Carolina’s omnibus restrictive election law —which included a voter ID requirement — as purposefully racially discriminatory, the Fourth Circuit noted that the state “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.”
• A federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing that state’s strict photo ID law found “that impersonation fraud — the type of fraud that voter ID is designed to prevent — is extremely rare” and “a truly isolated phenomenon that has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections.”
• Even the Supreme Court, in its opinion in Crawford upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, noted that the record in the case “contains no evidence of any [in-person voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Two of the jurists who weighed in on that case at the time — Republican-appointed former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and conservative appellate court Judge Richard Posner — have since announced they regret their votes in favor of the law, with Judge Posnernoting that strict photo ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”

Those Who Publicly Argue Voter Fraud is Rampant Have Found Scant Evidence of it When They Go Looking for It

• Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.
• Texas lawmakers purported to pass its strict photo ID law to protect against voter fraud. Yet the chief law enforcement official in the state responsible for such prosecutions knew of only one conviction and one guilty plea that involved in-person voter fraud in all Texas elections from 2002 through 2014.
• A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud.

The verdict is in from every corner that voter fraud is sufficiently rare that it simply could not and does not happen at the rate even approaching that which would be required to “rig” an election. Electoral integrity is key to our democracy, and politicians who genuinely care about protecting our elections should focus not on phantom fraud concerns, but on those abuses that actually threaten election security.

As historians and election experts have catalogued, there is a long history in this country of racially suppressive voting measures — including poll taxes and all-white primaries — put in place under the guise of stopping voter fraud that wasn’t actually occurring in the first place. The surest way toward voting that is truly free, fair, and accessible is to know the facts in the face of such rhetoric.

[Jacque67 7,328]

All that these GOPrs (who won the House and Senate despite "voter fraud ") can really point to are a few cases of registration clerical errors.

Gotta love these conspiracy theories Donald spins. Wonder what his real medical report would reveal???

[Dashinka 23,261]

The Russians most likely have sophisticated enough tech to hack the DNC. Hacking the election, though? I really don't see how that's possible without some kind of Manchurian Candidate/on-the-ground force of infiltrators actually physically sabotaging something.

If the DNC's data was so badly secured that Russian intelligence was able to hack them, makes me wonder why the US spends billions on the NSA and defense and they couldn't manage to keep the hackers out. It reflects badly on the NSA/department of defense. Hillary can blame the Russians all she wants, but why there wasn't tighter security is anyone's guess.

Was the NSA and DOD supposed to protect the DNC systems? Last I heard the DNC is not part of the executive branch.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I would suggest that some of you here watch a documentary that aired on HBO years ago called "hacking democracy" before you say election fraud or voter fraud doesn't exist and never existed. It's funny Obama said there is no such thing as election fraud and elections are run at the local level. Yet he is putting Federal election monitors in place to watch for fraud he says doesn't exist.

I would suggest you try Val's luncheon special today, it's a big pile of mystery meat on rye.

[smilesammich 10,727]

It seems we're throwing facts out the window completely today, so anything close to the truth is acceptable.

You're correct btw.

i'm scratching my head right now over how diebold is somehow hooking up with russia to give the election straight over to killary.

I would suggest you try Val's luncheon special today, it's a big pile of mystery meat on rye.

don't mind the greenish tint

[millefleur 5,037]

Was the NSA and DOD supposed to protect the DNC systems? Last I heard the DNC is not part of the executive branch.

Really? That's a bit odd. So the data created by the people in charge of selecting who might be the next president isn't protect by anything other than whoever they choose to hire. Sounds....secure.

According to this article, the NSA were involved. So.....my point stands.

Edited October 20, 2016 by millefleur

[cdneh 3,112]

Melowese Richardson. Start with her.