There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

a reply to: JBurns

Sieg heil mein fuhrer

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Possession of a SSN has nothing to do with citizenship. It has to do with being able to legally work in the USA and thus being liable for taxation. My wife, who is NOT a US citizen, has an SSN. The prosession of an SSN as voter registration is good for 3 things: 1) cross check verification, extra assurance - 2) they can use the number for your voter ID if that is the state's procedure (it is not in my State) - 3) they can 'pass it around' to other states to make sure you aren't voting in several jurisdictions.

EVERY ONE has to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. EVERYONE. Without exception. And they sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to vote.

Most people, who register at their county recorder, show their birth certificate, which shows that they were born in the USA, or their naturalization papers if they are naturalized citizens. For overseas voters the obvious proof is their passport.

Why does using a driver's license work in some states? Because you show your birth certificate to the DMV when you apply for your drivers license and they record the details (according to state law). The registrar can check your birth details with the DMV so you don't have to drag out your BC a second time. In some states they even go so far as to offer to register you to vote when you apply for your Driver's license. It's for your convenience, nothing else.

Just because you don't SEE the proof of citizenship happening doesn't mean it isn't.

Since you like long quotes of the rules that you think prove what you are claiming, I'll quote the rules from my state (Arizona) that absolutely prove what I am saying:

What forms are required to prove citizenship when registering to vote?

If you have an Arizona driver license or non-operating identification card issued after October 1, 1996, you will need only to provide the license number on box 9 of the voter registration form.

If you do not have an Arizona license you may include a photocopy of one of the following documents:

• A legible photocopy of a birth certificate that verifies citizenship and supporting legal documentation (i.e. marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name
  
• A legible photocopy of the pertinent pages of your passport
  
• Presentation to the County Recorder of U.S. naturalization documents or fill in your Alien Registration Number in box 11
  
• Your Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number in box 10
  
• A legible photocopy of your Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Tribal or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.
  

Register to Vote or Update Your Current Voter Information

Every state has similar requirements - every state without exception -

a reply to: JBurns

Phillip Nolan, is that really you?

a reply to: rnaa

You're off on proof of citizenship again.

I am talking about proof of identification.

Moving on.

Caution!!!!!

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms And Conditions Of Use
Is There Civilization Without Civility

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

I wrote about a couple things in this thread and I cannot find my original post but I would like to add the following.


Today, the state of Texas is suing GA, PA, WI, and MI for their inability to run proper elections
They all violated the constitution per the suit by changing voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions and not through the state legislature. I argued in my original post that mail-in ballots are inherently illegal and without proper protocols and state legislation approval, illegal. These states (and others most likely) violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution. In the original post, I argued the constitutionality of mail-in ballots, and this is being argued once again.

Another point was the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause, differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties and different states. That one is not refutable. Especially when states use executive action to change the rules. This ties into the ELECTION DAY as ONE DAY point and changing the rules for one place to another.

That's fraud without all the thousands of affidavits and forensic analysis that are coming out. These states certified elections that were fraudulent. Anyone arguing against this racketeering scheme needs to reanalyze.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: rnaa

You're off on proof of citizenship again.

I am talking about proof of identification.

Moving on.

I worked in a polling station. We were told not to ask for Drivers license ID. They just provided us their address. If they volunteered to let us we could scan the Drivers license. I always knew why. To make fraud easy. Anyone could register to vote right at my computer terminal.

Also, the court case Love v Foster has set legal precedence as well:

The Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, that you cannot allow voting to continue after election day:

“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)

If an election is consummated after Election Day, this also violates the statute, and such behavior, along with State legislation that encourages it, is preempted by 3 U.S.C. § 1. The logic of such a prohibition goes directly to the heart of the evils Congress sought to nullify by creating a uniform Election Day.

Single day elections curtail a distortion of the voting process by concealing results that might influence later voting. The “object” of 2 U.S.C. § 7, as noted by the Supreme Court, was to remedy multiple evils involved with non-uniform voting. Therefore, under the unanimous holding in Foster v. Love, federal elections consummated before, and after, Election Day, are preempted by Congressional statutes."

Which I stated ELECTION day, IS one day only.

originally posted by: antmax21
Also, the court case Love v Foster has set legal precedence as well:

The Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, that you cannot allow voting to continue after election day:

“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)

If an election is consummated after Election Day, this also violates the statute, and such behavior, along with State legislation that encourages it, is preempted by 3 U.S.C. § 1. The logic of such a prohibition goes directly to the heart of the evils Congress sought to nullify by creating a uniform Election Day.

Single day elections curtail a distortion of the voting process by concealing results that might influence later voting. The “object” of 2 U.S.C. § 7, as noted by the Supreme Court, was to remedy multiple evils involved with non-uniform voting. Therefore, under the unanimous holding in Foster v. Love, federal elections consummated before, and after, Election Day, are preempted by Congressional statutes."

Which I stated ELECTION day, IS one day only.

What is this relevant to? Literally no jurisdiction allowed voting to occur after Election Day.

It will all coincide with the 14th amendment.
Each of these states with their "we do what we want orders," all violated the 14th amendment.
Equal protection under the law. As I stated in my very first post in here. That the 14th amendment would come into play and it has. This adds more precedence to that. Bush V. Gore did the same damn thing. If they rule otherwise, they themselves will be violating over 150 years of case law/precedence. And if that occurs, that will be the straw that breaks the dam that is holding American's from civil war or going after traitors. How many coincidences do you need to listen or hear or see on video to not continuously deny election fraud. This is NOT VOTER FRAUD, this is election fraud by officials.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

I guess we should have just listened to the lawyer dude jonnylaw16 in the first place since he seems to know what he is talking about and everything he said has pretty much come true. No evidence, No play.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

I worked in a polling station. We were told not to ask for Drivers license ID. They just provided us their address. If they volunteered to let us we could scan the Drivers license. I always knew why. To make fraud easy. Anyone could register to vote right at my computer terminal.

According to National Conference of State Legislatures

How SDR Works

• Proof of residency is a key requirement in all states that offer same day registration. In a traditional (pre-Election Day) registration, election officials have time to send a non-forwardable mailing to the prospective voter in order to verify the voter's residence before processing the registration application. Because that isn't possible with SDR, the prospective voter must present proof of residency at the time of registration or soon after registering. A current driver's license or ID card will suffice in all states. In some states, documents such as a paycheck or utility bill with an address is acceptable for proving residence. A few states also permit an already-registered voter to vouch for the residency of an Election Day registrant.
  
• Voter ID: All of the SDR states also require that voters who register and vote on Election Day present documentation to verify their identity. Some states require a photo ID; others accept IDs without a photo.
  

Ensuring Security

All states employ various measures to ensure the security of same day voter registration. Many of the processes listed below are used in conjunction with one another. Common security measures include:

Proof of identity and residency. All states require prospective voters to show ID. Some

states will allow a provisional ballot to be cast if the prospective voter cannot provide identification at the time of registration, but ID must be provided before it is counted in the election.

Casting of provisional ballots. Several states will count a ballot as provisional until proper ID

is supplied or until the voter’s application is fully checked.
( etc... see link for complete list )

What state were you working in? Are you aware that the same day registration ALWAYS results in a verification process before that voter's ballot is actually counted? You, working at your terminal, won't see that verification process - and as a volunteer flying a terminal you don't need to be trained in the entire process to do the narrow data entry task you have been assigned.

The link above shows the specific Same Day Voting procedures followed by each state.

Each state that I have reviewed allow the prospective voter without sufficient ID a "provisional ballot". The voters residence must then be verified before the "provisional ballot" is counted.


From: Politifact (headings in bold added by me for clarity)/

Claim: "You have to be a citizen to vote," but with same-day voter registration, "you have places where people just walk in and vote."

Analysis: In states with same-day voter registration, people don’t just walk in and vote. They have to provide the same level of identification as when registering in advance. Experts told us there is no additional risk of noncitizens casting ballots in states with same-day voter registration, nor is there any evidence that this occurs.

Ruling: We rate Trump’s statement False.

originally posted by: antmax21
It will all coincide with the 14th amendment.
Each of these states with their "we do what we want orders," all violated the 14th amendment.
Equal protection under the law. As I stated in my very first post in here. That the 14th amendment would come into play and it has. This adds more precedence to that. Bush V. Gore did the same damn thing. If they rule otherwise, they themselves will be violating over 150 years of case law/precedence. And if that occurs, that will be the straw that breaks the dam that is holding American's from civil war or going after traitors. How many coincidences do you need to listen or hear or see on video to not continuously deny election fraud. This is NOT VOTER FRAUD, this is election fraud by officials.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

This is utter nonsense. Please come back when you know what you are talking about. Or feel free to ask some question to become better informed. But nothing that you have said has any merit (nor does it even make sense for that matter).

originally posted by: TheRaxVirus
I guess we should have just listened to the lawyer dude jonnylaw16 in the first place since he seems to know what he is talking about and everything he said has pretty much come true. No evidence, No play.

Appreciate it! Just trying to introduce some knowledge and reason into these discussions!

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: carewemust
The Trump legal team has accumulated and presented more viable/suitable evidence for Election Fraud, than what Congressman Adam Schiff presented for successfully Impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

By all means, please share the links to all of this presented evidence. Trump and his lawyers have talked a big game but they have presented very little (if anything at all). Prove me wrong if you can.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible?

It would be; these lawsuits are all being filed publicly.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible before they file the lawsuit?

No, but they have filed many lawsuits already. Time is of the essence to Trump's attorney's. If they had damning evidence, that evidence would have been submitted in the cases that have already been filed.

Could have would have should have is your opinion not a fact. Your title should have been changed to "In my opinion there is no actual evidence of voter fraud, here's how we think so".

Anyway in light of evidence having been shown, your thread is now moot.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: JBurns

Sieg heil mein fuhrer

Funny you like to insinuate some Republicans of being natzis yet its the majority of democrats that are for censorship of Republicans, want to take gun rights away, have an ideological unity between the media and your political party, have an ideological unity between academia and political parties, the will to power and crushing dissent, interested in a totalitarian society.

All of these are attributes that liberals share with the natzi party. Now add in the massive voter fraud and they have nearly completed the equivalent of a Hitler takeover of the controlling political party in the United States. Should the Republicans now flee like Jews?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: carewemust
The Trump legal team has accumulated and presented more viable/suitable evidence for Election Fraud, than what Congressman Adam Schiff presented for successfully Impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

By all means, please share the links to all of this presented evidence. Trump and his lawyers have talked a big game but they have presented very little (if anything at all). Prove me wrong if you can.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible?

It would be; these lawsuits are all being filed publicly.

Would their evidence be publicly accessible before they file the lawsuit?

No, but they have filed many lawsuits already. Time is of the essence to Trump's attorney's. If they had damning evidence, that evidence would have been submitted in the cases that have already been filed.

Could have would have should have is your opinion not a fact. Your title should have been changed to "In my opinion there is no actual evidence of voter fraud, here's how we think so".

Anyway in light of evidence having been shown, your thread is now moot.

I am sorry that our education system has failed you so badly. The entire point of this thread is that "evidence" of fraud has to be put before a judge and credited for it to mean anything. That has literally not happened. Indeed, the thesis of this thread has been proven correct time and again as courts continue to throw out Trump's and his allies' meritless law suits. My take is based on an objective and experienced analysis of how legal practice works in this country. You don't have to believe it, but I am right, and time has only proven this.