Blowing up in twitter verse right now. Heres the actual doc.
Of course this is the conclusion rational conservatives like you have landed on. It's the charge led by Trump, Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell that crossed over to crazytown a long time ago that won't let go of this notion that the election was stolen.
How many more times is someone from that group going to say that they have some 'a-ha' piece of evidence and that they'll reveal it soon? How many times are people going to fall for that?
No. I'm not wasting my time on completely ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's completely played out and I'm tired of squinting hard and tilting my head to try to see something that isn't there.
Ask yourself this. If there were legitimate claims of voter fraud, wouldn't you think leaders in mainstream GOP would be all over it? I would think that actually delegitimizing the last presidential election would be unbelievably huge for the GOP and they'd ride that to staying in power for a long, long time. The kind of distrust they could leverage against the Democrats would carry them through several election cycles. It would devastate the Democratic party for the foreseeable future.
If there was a 'there' there, I think the establishment GOP would be all over it. And I think they actually tried (in vain) to find the smoking gun for a good while. Instead of staying on this crazy train, all the grown ups in the GOP admitted that it was time to move on long ago.
All that said, if I'm wrong and we see Mitch McConnell and a host of other GOP actual leaders giving a press conference on all this, call me out on it. I'll come here and eat crow (this doesn't include Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Bobert). I don't think I'll ever have to do that, but I'm willing to in the unlikely event that it happens.
Ah, so you haven't read it, but you comment on it like you know what's in it.
I thought so.
Are you serious? That was done due to digitizing old voter records. Voter fraud is when an ineligible voter votes.
I'm glad you thought that because that's exactly the case.
If someone ran up to me on the street and said something totally off the wall crazy to me - like my house rocketed to the moon or that my wang fell off in the middle of the night - I wouldn't read some 'report' they produced trying to prove whatever crazy thing they were saying.
This is along similar lines.
It says they put in birth date for registrations not having them.
"Digitizing" has nothing to do with it. There were that many voter registrations WITHOUT BIRTH DATES.
How does that make a voter eligible to vote when they don't have a birth date on their registration?
Yeah, an investigation that took months and cost real money is exactly like someone running up to you on the street and saying something off the wall.
Yes, they put in a date because a date had to be there when they merged voter rolls. So what? We recently changed databases (voter rolls come from databases, by the way) at work and found the old data didn't always have data in the required fields. We set arbitrary default data into those fields similar to the default dates put into the voter roll data base during the merger. As we've gone along since the data has been slowly clearing up. Some never will be because it's no longer being updated. It happens. This is what the state was doing. Nothing nefarious about it. There was no motive to defraud. It wasn't even done by Democratic or Republican politicians. It was done by ordinary state workers. The voter rolls were also routinely updated just like our database and by 2021 there were only 3,700 that didn't have that validated and updated! That means all except those 3700 were valid. There is no evidence that those people weren't legitimate people whose records just hadn't been updated yet. Many of them were probably passed or moved. I don't know if any or none of them voted or something in between, but even if every single one voted the result of Wisconsin wouldn't have changed. It amazes me that you think this is something. It truly is nothing.
It's like reasoning with a squirrel, isn't it? Facts seem irrelevant to some.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
How does someone a long time ago not entering a birthdate on someone else's voter registration make someone ineligible to vote?
So if someone decided not to put your birthdate on your voter registration originally, then you shouldn't ever be allowed to vote?
Got it. So let me go through all the republican voter registrations and remove birthdays and then yall can't vote muwahahahahahahaha
@Aloha Hoosier - I ran your post through the batshit crazy far-right decoder ring and while you may think you've pointed out that nothing is there, you've actually exposed the truth. Consider your eyes opened!
This is more valid and reasonable "proof" of voter fraud than anything I've seen in this entire thread.
So what? A registration without a birth date is invalid - that's so what.
There's no need to go into a big justification for why you don't believe it - it's obvious you've made up your mind, and facts or law won't change that.
Go ahead and try to register to vote without putting in a birth date.
Yes, if they didn't put in a birth date originally, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's called a law. If you don't fill out a voter registration form properly, you are not legally registered to vote.
I tried to dumb it down so even you would understand it, but I'm just a hopeless optimist.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Lets dumb it down for you since you're not able to grasp it.
PolitiFact Wisconsin: Are Wisconsin's voter rolls padded with century old dates?
One hundred years is a long time. But is that how long names of some Wisconsin residents have been on the state's voter rolls?
www.tmj4.com
Some communities didn't have birth dates for voters. I'd say that is more to blame on the people collecting the voter registrations. So your solution is to just punish the voters in those communities even though it wasn't their fault?
And no where does it say the political make up of the votes that didn't include birth dates or had generic dates put in. Are you just assuming they are all from democrats and every single registered voter with an invalid date just happened to vote as well? We already know all voter fraud isn't from dems given the reports of dead trumpers magically voting in 2020 on numerous occasions and I highly doubt throwing out voters with invalid dates is going to be all dems either. Not that it matters. Even if they were all dems, TRUMP WOULD STILL HAVE LOST WISCONSIN.
And given that many Republicans did quite well in Wisconsin in the other races, it is safe to assume some of those supposed "invalid votes" had Republicans on the ballot as well. There were obviously voters with split tickets.
If you're going to discount all votes without a valid birth date, then some of those Republicans in the other races that were on the same ballot might start sweating. There were not enough questionable ballots to change the presidential race results, but it may get the dems a few seats in the other races that may have been closer. I really don't think taking them out of the count would go well for you
Or maybe people who registered based on what their community required when they registered shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't their fault.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
It's so cute when you try to post like a big boy!Lets dumb it down for you since you're not able to grasp it.
PolitiFact Wisconsin: Are Wisconsin's voter rolls padded with century old dates?
One hundred years is a long time. But is that how long names of some Wisconsin residents have been on the state's voter rolls?
Some communities didn't have birth dates for voters. I'd say that is more to blame on the people collecting the voter registrations. So your solution is to just punish the voters in those communities even though it wasn't their fault?
And no where does it say the political make up of the votes that didn't include birth dates or had generic dates put in. Are you just assuming they are all from democrats and every single registered voter with an invalid date just happened to vote as well? We already know all voter fraud isn't from dems given the reports of dead trumpers magically voting in 2020 on numerous occasions and I highly doubt throwing out voters with invalid dates is going to be all dems either. Not that it matters. Even if they were all dems, TRUMP WOULD STILL HAVE LOST WISCONSIN.
And given that many Republicans did quite well in Wisconsin in the other races, it is safe to assume some of those supposed "invalid votes" had Republicans on the ballot as well. There were obviously voters with split tickets.
The same claim was made in PA, and it involves place holders being used for year of birth on official records so it appears that these folks are all over 100. A lot of paper voter registrations never included an official year of birth, so when the data was transferred to electronic records states like PA and WI often use a common date as a place holder...
Here's the thing... The exact same process was in place in both those states in 2016, and in an election where Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 Million yet still won the electoral I don't remember you claiming that Clinton was cheated or demanding a recount because the tally was so close. I guess you expect us to believe that voter fraud is an exclusively Democrat problem, so there's no way that the election in 2016 should have been scrutinized to the same degree that you folks have done for the past 15 mos? If 2016 had involved these types of year long stop the steal nonsense parades, then you people would have a degree of credibility...
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
The interpretation of Wisconsin's election bribery law in the report is seriously wacked. From the report:
Wis. Stat. § 12.11, in relevant part, prohibits a city from receiving money to facilitate electors going to the polls or to facilitate electors to voting by absentee ballot:
Election bribery
(1) In this section, “anything of value” includes any amount of money, or any object which has utility independent of any political message it contains and the value of which exceeds $1…
(1m) Any person who does any of the following violates this chapter:
1. Offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or endeavors to procure, anything of value, or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to:
1. Go to … the polls.
2. Vote….
Wis. Stat. § 12.11 (emphasis added). Although the word “person” is not defined in section 12.11, it is defined elsewhere to include “bodies politic,” which also includes municipalities. See Wis. Stat. § 990.01(26). Although the word “induce” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 12.11, it is commonly defined to mean “to call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation.”
In other words, if I (person 1) pay you (person 2) $1,000 to produce a radio spot urging people to go to the polls and vote, I have violated Wisconsin's election bribery statute. That is how the report interprets the statute - in this case, claiming that the Zuckerberg Plan Grant (person 1) gave money to 5 cities (person 2) for getting more people to vote, thereby violating the election bribery statute.
Wis. Stat. § 12.11, in relevant part, prohibits a city from receiving money to facilitate electors going to the polls or to facilitate electors to voting by absentee ballot:
Election bribery
(1) In this section, “anything of value” includes any amount of money, or any object which has utility independent of any political message it contains and the value of which exceeds $1…
(1m) Any person who does any of the following violates this chapter:
1. Offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or endeavors to procure, anything of value, or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to:
1. Go to … the polls.
2. Vote….
Wis. Stat. § 12.11 (emphasis added). Although the word “person” is not defined in section 12.11, it is defined elsewhere to include “bodies politic,” which also includes municipalities. See Wis. Stat. § 990.01(26). Although the word “induce” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 12.11, it is commonly defined to mean “to call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation.”
In other words, if I (person 1) pay you (person 2) $1,000 to produce a radio spot urging people to go to the polls and vote, I have violated Wisconsin's election bribery statute. That is how the report interprets the statute - in this case, claiming that the Zuckerberg Plan Grant (person 1) gave money to 5 cities (person 2) for getting more people to vote, thereby violating the election bribery statute.
It was done a decade ago, by people of both parties transcribing paper records (which often did not include a listed birthdate) to electronic records that call for one. They weren't standing there with voters on hand, they were transcribing records, as part of their day to day job.
The important aspect is that it was done a decade ago, it's uniform thruout the various states, and there have been plenty of elections (including one where Trump won those states) since that system was put into place. No one complained about it in 2016 when some of the people in those states who voted for Biden in 2020, voted for Trump and he won narrow victories in 2 states (PA,WI) that hadn't voted for a GOP candidate for POTUS this century. There's a reason not one single credible conservative on this board agrees with the looney fringe on voter fraud...
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Couldn't you make the argument that any political ad would be a violation because they obviously want you to vote after seeing the ad.
Probably, but Democrats were howling that there was fraud. And Hillary still says she didn't lose in 2016. And Stacey Abrams still says she won.
Why be such a hypocrite?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I don't think you are capable at dumbing it down enough for danc to comprehend. It's a bridge too far for the highly partisan.
Dude you're not using common sense. Some of those voter registrations dated back a half century or more, and included Jim Crow era policies. Photo ID's didn't even become a reality until the first decade of the 21st century, with IN being the first state to implement it. You act like there was some standard established where birthdates were required, but obviously that is far from the case. Different states had different rules- it's not like there was some standardized form in use...
But again, BOTH parties won elections and election laws were made by both parties. The GOP is trying to tighten things up and rally to phony issues like "voter fraud" because they are the minority party. The same people who voted in 2020 who would be affected by this issue, voted in 2016. This issue would only apply to people who were registered prior to the switch to electronic registries that were made a decade or so ago...
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? The point is it's just as phony an issue in this new claim in WI, as it was when the same claim was made (and debunked) in PA...
I suppose it could based on the bizarre interpretation in the report - which simply demonstrates that the interpretation in the report is utter nonsense.
Dude, you're not using your head. If they don't have the correct information, they're not legally registered.
It's so cut-and-dried and you keep making excuses - it's entertaining.
Read your post again.
Either you're playing dumb or you don't understand what you posted.
