Bernie Sanders

[redcairo]

What happened to Bernie?

 

I had high hopes for him. But y'all know how it went with him losing at the DNC and HRC getting the nomination.

 

It was a bit odd that just after he was stumping for her, but I thought perhaps she had implied he might be her VP or something if he did. No idea but that obviously didn't happen.

The election is over now and I'm surprised that he is still going on 'against Trump' since I actually suspect many of his voters ended up Trump voters. But, that's all well and fine.

 

Except it seems like he has kind of gone off the deep end. To wit:
 

 

Tuesday on TBS's "Conan," former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said President-elect Donald Trump’s "delusional" and "totally insane" tweets have "hidden" his messages. Discussing Trump’s tweet about illegal voters, Sanders said, "When he says that, he is really sending a signal to Republicans all over this country, Republican leaders. What he is saying is we have got to suppress the vote. We have got to make it harder for poor people, people of color, immigrants, elderly people to participate because they may be voting against us. And that is scary stuff."

 

That's incredibly irrational, hyperbolic, and projectively paranoid. What happened to him??

 

RC

[Brian]

What happened to Bernie?

 

I had high hopes for him. But y'all know how it went with him losing at the DNC and HRC getting the nomination.

 

It was a bit odd that just after he was stumping for her, but I thought perhaps she had implied he might be her VP or something if he did. No idea but that obviously didn't happen.

 

The election is over now and I'm surprised that he is still going on 'against Trump' since I actually suspect many of his voters ended up Trump voters. But, that's all well and fine.

 

Except it seems like he has kind of gone off the deep end. To wit:

 

 

That's incredibly irrational, hyperbolic, and projectively paranoid. What happened to him??

 

RC

You understand he's a party apparatchik, right? Did you wonder why he didn't seem disturbed when it was revealed that the media and the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign in the primary race?

 

He carries water for Soros & the Alinskyites.

[Marblehead]

He and Jill would have made a great failed team.

[redcairo]

You understand he's a party apparatchik, right? Did you wonder why he didn't seem disturbed when it was revealed that the media and the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign in the primary race?

 

He carries water for Soros & the Alinskyites.

 

Since I only get indirect news for the most part, and he just wasn't big enough to be on my radar until this election, I don't know anything about him. But it makes sense, since he's a far socialist, he'd be in the Soros (may-he-rot) camp. Sigh.

 

I don't know how I could be disillusioned.

 

RC

[dust]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/01/how-a-dubious-tweet-about-illegal-votes-found-its-way-to-trumps-megaphone

 

 

The claims Trump et al are making are utter nonsense, yet again.

 

There is none of this illegal alien voting, or at least no more than a trickle that would have no bearing on the overall result. And even if there were millions of illegals voting, 100% would have to have been voting Clinton in order for the margin of the popular vote to be erased in Trump's favour.

 

So what's the reason behind his nonsense?

 

Sanders might be wrong about the specifics, but he's perfectly reasonable in being paranoid. Trump is using bad information to claim that he's more popular than he is, and to claim that a substantial percentage of those who voted should not have voted. And lots of people likely believe him.

 

Also, if he and his supporters genuinely believe that he should've won the popular vote, why object to recounts? Surely, if they eliminated all these supposed illegal votes, he'd be sitting pretty?

[redcairo]

There's been public notes on illegals voting for years now. He might be wrong on quantity (not yet known) but I don't think the issue is false.

 

I care zero about popular vote. The whole campaign approach would have been different if that were how it worked. And this country wouldn't have founded without electoral to compensate.

 

Also there is no reason for any winner to expect a recount and he'd be perfectly justified in seeing it as political and not merely civil if someone ONLY wants to recount in states that, as an amazing coincidence, IF they could come up with a better number might unseat him. There were several much closer races nobody addressed.

 

It is truly disingenious to pretend that all this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to not-lose from the other side.

 

And to continually press publicly and privately on electorals to see the election as somehow injust, and to keep dissent in public.

 

All this has done is contributed to my belief that the new left is literally at this point an outright danger to national security and a menace to our nation as a whole. I would not say this about the ordinary and former left, but the New Left -- like their version of a tea party but louder and pinker -- it is simply way too much at this point.

 

And this after a whole campaign that seemed to me to be insanely weighted in favor of that side.

 

It's ironic it should come with the first female final candidate because it's almost like every horrible stereotype about women, embodied in a presidential campaign.

 

Anything worth doing is worth overdoing, I guess.

 

RC

[dust]

There's been public notes on illegals voting for years now. He might be wrong on quantity (not yet known) but I don't think the issue is false.

 

I'd be interested to see how you or anyone else explains exactly how illegals are able to vote. Seriously.

 

There seem to be many claiming it, but rarely an indication as to how it's done*. Even legal citizens who are not registered to vote, or people who have already voted and want to vote twice, have a hard time doing it. Voter fraud is extremely rare.

 

*(let alone how it's possible that 3 million illegals could vote without anyone apparently noticing for weeks after)

 

 

Also there is no reason for any winner to expect a recount and he'd be perfectly justified in seeing it as political and not merely civil if someone ONLY wants to recount in states that, as an amazing coincidence, IF they could come up with a better number might unseat him. There were several much closer races nobody addressed.

 

I didn't say the recount is reasonable... I give no opinion on the Stein/Clinton recount thing. I only ask that if Trump really wants people to believe he actually won the popular vote and that it was all rigged and etc etc, why not ask for a recount himself?

 

 

It is truly disingenious to pretend that all this is nothing more than a desperate attempt to not-lose from the other side.

 

And to continually press publicly and privately on electorals to see the election as somehow injust, and to keep dissent in public.

 

All this has done is contributed to my belief that the new left is literally at this point an outright danger to national security and a menace to our nation as a whole. I would not say this about the ordinary and former left, but the New Left -- like their version of a tea party but louder and pinker -- it is simply way too much at this point.

 

And this after a whole campaign that seemed to me to be insanely weighted in favor of that side.

 

I'm sure the recount thing is a desperate attempt to not lose. But do you honestly think Trump wouldn't have asked for one? He literally said he would not accept the result if he lost (and then backed up and said something like "We'll see").

 

I would say that it is truly disingenuous to avoid the issue in question: that Trump is continuing to lie straight out of his arse. Sanders is not wrong to question his motives. It's farcical, the shit he gets away with!

[Brian]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/01/how-a-dubious-tweet-about-illegal-votes-found-its-way-to-trumps-megaphone

 

 

The claims Trump et al are making are utter nonsense, yet again.

 

There is none of this illegal alien voting, or at least no more than a trickle that would have no bearing on the overall result. And even if there were millions of illegals voting, 100% would have to have been voting Clinton in order for the margin of the popular vote to be erased in Trump's favour.

 

So what's the reason behind his nonsense?

 

Sanders might be wrong about the specifics, but he's perfectly reasonable in being paranoid. Trump is using bad information to claim that he's more popular than he is, and to claim that a substantial percentage of those who voted should not have voted. And lots of people likely believe him.

 

Also, if he and his supporters genuinely believe that he should've won the popular vote, why object to recounts? Surely, if they eliminated all these supposed illegal votes, he'd be sitting pretty?

 

Ummm...

 

Recounting cast ballots is not the same as validating the eligibility of those who cast the ballots. A simple recount makes sense in extremely close races but typically only changes the count by hundreds of votes out of millions cast.

 

By federal law, anyone can register to vote at the time of getting or renewing a driver's license by merely checking a box to indicate they are eligible. Twelve states plus the District of Columbia have made it legal for illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. To suggest that they all so respect rule of law as to not register and not vote seems a bit naïve, I think. For the record, the following is the list:

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Illinois

Maryland

Nevada

New Mexico

Utah

Vermont

Washington

 

Here's the ones on that list which Hillary won:

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Illinois

Maryland

Nevada

New Mexico

Vermont

Washington

 

EDIT: BTW, in the OTHER states, you simply fill out a voter registration card and mail it in, or go to one of many registration spots, or give your name and address to one of the many voter registration volunteers who go out into minority neighborhoods, schools, malls, nursing homes, etc. (among other places) and they'll fill out the form for you. No eligibility documentation needed. Look into what happened with ACORN, for instance. There are lots and lots of documented cases of fraud but they are uniformly dismissed as isolated incidents.

 

EDIT 2: BTW (again), while the registration process is super easy and relies entirely on the honor system, one might be led to believe that the actual voting process safeguards against people voting illegally (either being ineligible or not being the person in question or that person actually being dead), right? Nope. In fact, that is facilitated! For instance, federal law requires native-language voting materials to be provided in any political subdivision (state, country, precinct, etc.) in which a given language is native to 5% of the population or 10,000 people, whichever is lower. This is particularly curious since it is a requirement of naturalized citizenship that the applicant be able to read, write and speak English.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Brian

[redcairo]

Well there's also that they made it "automatic" that anybody registering for obamacare was registered to vote, at least in some places...

[dust]

Ummm...

 

Recounting cast ballots is not the same as validating the eligibility of those who cast the ballots. A simple recount makes sense in extremely close races but typically only changes the count by hundreds of votes out of millions cast.

 

No, but if Trump really wanted to show how correct he is, that 2-3 million illegal votes were cast in Clinton's favour, wouldn't it behoove him to suggest a validation and subsequent recount?

 

In fact, wouldn't it be his responsibility to make sure that this verification and recount happens, and that such a destabilizing blow to legal democracy doesn't happen again?

 

 

 

By federal law, anyone can register to vote at the time of getting or renewing a driver's license by merely checking a box to indicate they are eligible. Twelve states plus the District of Columbia have made it legal for illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. To suggest that they all so respect rule of law as to not register and not vote seems a bit naïve, I think.

 

And you don't need to provide e.g. a social security number? And there's no citizenship verification?

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html

 

When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls.

 

...

 

Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

Edited December 1, 2016 by dust

[dust]

Also,

 

[Brian]

No, but if Trump really wanted to show how correct he is, that 2-3 million illegal votes were cast in Clinton's favour, wouldn't it behoove him to suggest a validation and subsequent recount?

 

In fact, wouldn't it be his responsibility to make sure that this verification and recount happens, and that such a destabilizing blow to legal democracy doesn't happen again?

 

 

 

 

And you don't need to provide e.g. a social security number? And there's no citizenship verification?

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html

 

When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls.

 

...

 

Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

i would encourage you to dig a little deeper into the mechanics of that verification process.

[dust]

Aaaand... there we go again.

[redcairo]

Note: it differs in each state

[Brian]

Aaaand... there we go again.

You have Internet access. If you want to know, you'll do your own research. You certainly aren't going to believe me or any evidence I provide so why should I bother?

 

<shrug>

 

Who knows? You might learn something. For instance, you might find that there is no process in place for identifying who should be disqualified. You might learn that the federal government actively thwarts efforts by those state which try to validate their voter registration lists. You might find that a recent nationwide study revealed that 13% of Hispanic illegal aliens openly admitted to being registered voters or that a multi-institution academic analysis showed the number to be more like 25%. You might find dead people who continue to vote for decades after they're dead.

 

Or you might not. Who knows?

[dust]

You have Internet access. If you want to know, you'll do your own research. You certainly aren't going to believe me or any evidence I provide so why should I bother?

 

From my perspective, the only times I ever ignore or get annoyed with or angry at people on here are when they make claims but refuse to provide evidence. If I am aware of evidence, I do my best to take a balanced look at it.

 

This is why, for example, when I signed up to the forum I was a die-hard meat-eater, but am now a fairly convinced veggie. (This wasn't much to do with the forum, but my own research, but still serves as an example).

 

If you or any other member has provided me with good evidence for something and I've dismissed it out of hand, please let me know.

 

As far as internet access: yes, we all have it, and yet I still seem to be among the few who actually use it to find and post evidence on things in order to inform discussion on the board. I'm certainly not always right, but I do try.

 

 

Who knows? You might learn something. For instance, you might find that there is no process in place for identifying who should be disqualified.

 

Erm... the fact that they can't provide proof of citizenship wouldn't be enough?

 

 

You might learn that the federal government actively thwarts efforts by those state which try to validate their voter registration lists.

 

This is the kind of thing that it would be helpful to post evidence for. Am I just supposed to happen across it? I make no claims at being an all-star researcher. One of the points of being on a forum like this is to share information, not simply suggest that everyone else's supply of information is inadequate.

 

 

 

You might find that a recent nationwide study revealed that 13% of Hispanic illegal aliens openly admitted to being registered voters

 

First, 13% of those interviewed "admitted" to being noncitizens, but this does not necessarily mean illegal aliens.

 

Second, I don't know how this information is verifiable...? And why are these illegal aliens openly admitting to voter fraud? And one poll of such a small sample (800)?

 

Third, even if these noncitizens are all illegal and should not have been granted the right to vote, 13% would be 1.5 million across the nation. 30% would make up for Trump's gap in the popular vote, assuming they're all voting Clinton, but this is quite a leap.

 

edit:

 

You might note that in another survey, fewer than half of Latinos said they are "absolutely certain" that they are registered to vote. So how far do you trust a source that claims that a poll that talks of 13% noncitizens is actually talking about 13% of illegal aliens, and how sure are you that these illegal aliens are certain when apparently half of registered citizens in this ethnic demographic aren't certain?

Edited December 1, 2016 by dust

[MooNiNite]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/01/how-a-dubious-tweet-about-illegal-votes-found-its-way-to-trumps-megaphone

 

 

The claims Trump et al are making are utter nonsense, yet again.

 

There is none of this illegal alien voting, or at least no more than a trickle that would have no bearing on the overall result. And even if there were millions of illegals voting, 100% would have to have been voting Clinton in order for the margin of the popular vote to be erased in Trump's favour.

 

So what's the reason behind his nonsense?

 

Sanders might be wrong about the specifics, but he's perfectly reasonable in being paranoid. Trump is using bad information to claim that he's more popular than he is, and to claim that a substantial percentage of those who voted should not have voted. And lots of people likely believe him.

 

Also, if he and his supporters genuinely believe that he should've won the popular vote, why object to recounts? Surely, if they eliminated all these supposed illegal votes, he'd be sitting pretty?

 how does one even get an illegal citizen to do a survey? If I was an illegal citizen I would say no to everybody that asked for any surveys or anything related to that nature. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by MooNiNite

[Brian]

From my perspective, the only times I ever ignore or get annoyed with or angry at people on here are when they make claims but refuse to provide evidence. If I am aware of evidence, I do my best to take a balanced look at it.

 

This is why, for example, when I signed up to the forum I was a die-hard meat-eater, but am now a fairly convinced veggie. (This wasn't much to do with the forum, but my own research, but still serves as an example).

 

If you or any other member has provided me with good evidence for something and I've dismissed it out of hand, please let me know.

 

As far as internet access: yes, we all have it, and yet I still seem to be among the few who actually use it to find and post evidence on things in order to inform discussion on the board. I'm certainly not always right, but I do try.

 

 

 

Erm... the fact that they can't provide proof of citizenship wouldn't be enough?

 

 

 

This is the kind of thing that it would be helpful to post evidence for. Am I just supposed to happen across it? I make no claims at being an all-star researcher. One of the points of being on a forum like this is to share information, not simply suggest that everyone else's supply of information is inadequate.

 

 

 

 

First, 13% of those interviewed "admitted" to being noncitizens, but this does not necessarily mean illegal aliens.

 

Second, I don't know how this information is verifiable...? And why are these illegal aliens openly admitting to voter fraud? And one poll of such a small sample (800)?

 

Third, even if these noncitizens are all illegal and should not have been granted the right to vote, 13% would be 1.5 million across the nation. 30% would make up for Trump's gap in the popular vote, assuming they're all voting Clinton, but this is quite a leap.

You entered this thread with the position that the claims are "utter nonsense" -- remember?

 

You found the survey results (or at least some site dismissing it as utter nonsense), more likely, but you seem to have not bothered to actually read it. You also seem to have a poor understanding (or a willful misunderstanding) of how statistical surveying works...

 

http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf

 

13% of those who said they were not citizens also said they were registered to vote.

 

As to the number of illegal aliens (which you imply to be the oft-repeated 11 million number), it is curious how we have documented illegal immigrants coming in by the hundreds of thousands each year but that number hasn't changed in many years. More realistic estimates put it at between 25 million and 40 million at this point. Let's take the lower end of that (25 million) and assume that only 5% vote -- that'd be 1.25 million. That's only looking at illegal aliens who might also illegally vote! Factor in a percentage of the legal aliens who might also illegally vote and the claim of millions goes from "utter nonsense" to quite reasonable and well worth investigation as it has the potential to significantly impact election outcomes. In fact, it is quite unreasonable to simply dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense."

Edited December 1, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  The thread has gone off topic.  Nobody cares about Bernie.

[Brian]

Hehehe.  The thread has gone off topic.  Nobody cares about Bernie.

Actually, it is still quite on-topic. We started with Bernie's public assertion that Trump is insane and delusional and that claiming aliens have voted illegally is really a scary attempt to discriminate against poor people, minorities and the elderly. The question, then, is whether the claim of significant numbers of aliens voting is insane and delusional or whether Bernie is just a party apparatchik.

 

Add to this mix the fact that Obama actively worked prior to his own presidential campaign with a group disbanded (actually broken into pieces which still function) for voter fraud AND that he went on a Hispanic-focused TV network prior to this election and assured illegal immigrants that by voting they are citizens & that no one would be checking -- and I think the whole thing gets a bit more interesting.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

Good points Brian.  Florida has a pretty tight voter registration policy as well as picture ID required when voting but I'm sure it is still abused.

 

And I will state that I believe illegals should not be allowed to vote.  This would be mainly Hispanics right now.  Nor should anyone be allowed to vote more than once.  This has been a problem in the past.

 

But Bernie is talking out of his butt kissing up to Clinton and the Establishment.

 

The longer Obama has been in office the better I have learned to dislike him.

 

But then, I didn't like Bush Jr either.

 

Sometimes I don't even like myself.

[Brian]

Good points Brian.  Florida has a pretty tight voter registration policy as well as picture ID required when voting but I'm sure it is still abused.

 

And I will state that I believe illegals should not be allowed to vote.  This would be mainly Hispanics right now.  Nor should anyone be allowed to vote more than once.  This has been a problem in the past.

 

But Bernie is talking out of his butt kissing up to Clinton and the Establishment.

 

The longer Obama has been in office the better I have learned to dislike him.

 

But then, I didn't like Bush Jr either.

 

Sometimes I don't even like myself.

Wanna register to vote? Here you go:

https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote

 

 

Wanna do it the old-fashioned way? Well, if you live in Florida, you need to fill out this form:

http://dos.myflorida.com/media/693757/dsde39.pdf

 

Be sure to check the boxes that say you are a citizen and are not a convicted felon. Oh! You'll need ID, of course. Got a student ID or a copy of utility bill with your name and address on it, or copy of a paycheck? You are good to go!

 

This is from the 2014 election cycle but it is relevant, I think:

[Brian]

Or try this one on for size:

[Brian]

Or this one:

[Marblehead]

If I recall correctly, back in 1979 when I registered in Florida to vote I had to provide my birth certificate as evidence of citizenship.

 

Yes, there are still many scams going on regarding voting, especially in larger cities.

 

It is my opinion that the federal government should set minimal standards for qualifying to vote.  But then in recent years there has been a push to remove all qualifications.  I'm pretty sure Putin voted for Trump.