Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Have been uncovered by this guy...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... paid-taxes

This is funny coming from The Guardian.

The former employer of an infamous tax cheat, gay pornographer, and guy with questionable character himself, Glenn Greenwald.

Baldy wrote:This is funny coming from The Guardian.

The former employer of an infamous tax cheat, gay pornographer, and guy with questionable character himself, Glenn Greenwald.

And that has....what to do with the article?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Baldy wrote:This is funny coming from The Guardian.

The former employer of an infamous tax cheat, gay pornographer, and guy with questionable character himself, Glenn Greenwald.

And that has....what to do with the article?

Absolutely nothing. Greenwald triggers Baldy hard, he's brought up these old allegations before, and there's really not much to them.

Dback told me Baldy was really great in that one video and truly deserved to be compensated better.

Sour grapes, I guess.

I really do hope the election results are investigated...
Please please please

I've been hearing about millions of fraudulent voters for 20 years now
It's about time we put up or shut up - on this topic

Grizalltheway wrote:

Baldy wrote:This is funny coming from The Guardian.

The former employer of an infamous tax cheat, gay pornographer, and guy with questionable character himself, Glenn Greenwald.

And that has....what to do with the article?

I was trollin' for klam and caught one so bite me.

It's not really fair. Kinda like flies to shit or moths to a flame. Anytime you say kalm's man crush (no homo?) is a degenerate, he gets all defensive.

Baldy wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: And that has....what to do with the article?

I was trollin' for klam and caught one so bite me.

It's not really fair. Kinda like flies to shit or moths to a flame. Anytime you say kalm's man crush (no homo?) is a degenerate, he gets all defensive.

President Trump is extremely emotionally invested in how many people love him
and thus the whole frustration with crowd size and vote size

He'll never be as popular as Obama (never)
and he got fewer votes that Hilary...

He's furiously attempting to re-write yesterdays news
He won - but lost in areas that are dear to him

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: I was trollin' for klam and caught one so bite me.

It's not really fair. Kinda like flies to **** or moths to a flame. Anytime you say kalm's man crush (no homo?) is a degenerate, he gets all defensive.

President Trump is extremely emotionally invested in how many people love him
and thus the whole frustration with crowd size and vote size

He'll never be as popular as Obama (never)
and he got fewer votes that Hilary...

He's furiously attempting to re-write yesterdays news
He won - but lost in areas that are dear to him

He might have ED - electoral dysfunction.

Trump is off by a factor of 3 to 4.

"Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have....."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ja ... m-nonciti/

I'm actually enjoying the WaPo's take on all this....

Just a few months ago they published an article about all the noncitizens voting and how they may affect Congressional elections

Now that's old and busted

The new hotness is that Trump's full of sh1t. (He is, but so is WaPo since they have about a two week institutional memory)

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: I was trollin' for klam and caught one so bite me.

It's not really fair. Kinda like flies to shit or moths to a flame. Anytime you say kalm's man crush (no homo?) is a degenerate, he gets all defensive.

President Trump is extremely emotionally invested in how many people love him
and thus the whole frustration with crowd size and vote size

He'll never be as popular as Obama (never)
and he got fewer votes that Hilary...

He's furiously attempting to re-write yesterdays news
He won - but lost in areas that are dear to him

Funny how you and the lefties think he doesnt care about any of you..................

Cant have it both ways.

CID1990 wrote:I'm actually enjoying the WaPo's take on all this....

Just a few months ago they published an article about all the noncitizens voting and how they may affect Congressional elections

Now that's old and busted

The new hotness is that Trump's full of sh1t. (He is, but so is WaPo since they have about a two week institutional memory)

Sincerely,
Lets get to the bottom of it - I'm all for it
Trump wants an investigation and I say full speed ahead on that

Baldy wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: And that has....what to do with the article?

I was trollin' for klam and caught one so bite me.

It's not really fair. Kinda like flies to shit or moths to a flame. Anytime you say kalm's man crush (no homo?) is a degenerate, he gets all defensive.

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I'm actually enjoying the WaPo's take on all this....

Just a few months ago they published an article about all the noncitizens voting and how they may affect Congressional elections

Now that's old and busted

The new hotness is that Trump's full of sh1t. (He is, but so is WaPo since they have about a two week institutional memory)

Sincerely,
Lets get to the bottom of it - I'm all for it
Trump wants an investigation and I say full speed ahead on that

Agreed. Put this thing to bed once and for all.

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I'm actually enjoying the WaPo's take on all this....

Just a few months ago they published an article about all the noncitizens voting and how they may affect Congressional elections

Now that's old and busted

The new hotness is that Trump's full of sh1t. (He is, but so is WaPo since they have about a two week institutional memory)

Sincerely,
Lets get to the bottom of it - I'm all for it
Trump wants an investigation and I say full speed ahead on that

Personally I don't have a clue how many ineligible voters have cast ballots, but I have anecdotal evidence that it does happen - I have no idea as to the scale of it - but this is my experience:

Legal Permanent Residents (green card holders) lose their status if they remain outside the US for more than 1 year unless they can show that their absence from the US was due to circumstances beyond their control (like an incapacitating illness)

When they are denied entry to the US due to loss of status, they have to have an interview with a consular officer to determine if they can be granted entry due to the above, or if they have to go back through the petition process all over again. Many of these people do not understand the law, and why they have lost their status, so invariably they bring all kinds of evidence to the interview, thinking they need to prove that they really were "Americans" at one time.

In two very different countries, nearly every single returning resident interview would bring me a voter registration card. This is not a huge number of people, but it opened my eyes to how simple it is to register to vote with no verification of citizenship. I also don't know if these people actually voted in any elections, but they were certainly registered to do so.

I'd be curious to see the results of a nonpartisan investigation, but I really don't think that's possible. Plus, too many people (I think a vast majority, personally) are too invested in one political ideology or the other to change their position in the face of facts. This is true of people I work with every day, all the way up to the office of the President

I didn't read this article, however, is this the guy that's assuming a certain number of illegals voted in the 2016 Presidential election and trends suggest that a vast majority of them would vote Democrat? Therefore, a large number of the votes were fraudulent?

If we do take a serious look at voting in this country, the two things that we have to figure out is 1) how to correct the voter rolls and 2) how to have an auditable voting system everywhere. It wasn't too long ago that some agency looked at the voting rolls and determined something like 20% of the rolls were inaccurate - people who have moved still listed in the precinct they moved from, people dead still there, people who had lost the right to vote were still there, and so on. And second, we shouldn't have voting machines where there is no way to audit that they haven't counted the wrong vote, or just missed votes entirely. I vote on a machine in PA where I press buttons to highlight my votes, and then I press one button to submit all my votes. I don't get a paper receipt showing what my votes were tallied as, and there's no duplicate copy kept anywhere. Whatever the machine has in it's storage is it. If the machine wasn't registering correctly, or if it mixed data at any point, no one would ever know.

Regardless of what you think about why either party would want to look more closely at the voting process, reasonable people should be able to agree that the registration process is really messed up right now and that the voting methods we have in place are, if not ripe for error, at least unsecure enough that we can't even tell if they are working correctly or not. And those things should all be fixable.

GannonFan wrote:If we do take a serious look at voting in this country, the two things that we have to figure out is 1) how to correct the voter rolls and 2) how to have an auditable voting system everywhere. It wasn't too long ago that some agency looked at the voting rolls and determined something like 20% of the rolls were inaccurate - people who have moved still listed in the precinct they moved from, people dead still there, people who had lost the right to vote were still there, and so on. And second, we shouldn't have voting machines where there is no way to audit that they haven't counted the wrong vote, or just missed votes entirely. I vote on a machine in PA where I press buttons to highlight my votes, and then I press one button to submit all my votes. I don't get a paper receipt showing what my votes were tallied as, and there's no duplicate copy kept anywhere. Whatever the machine has in it's storage is it. If the machine wasn't registering correctly, or if it mixed data at any point, no one would ever know.

Regardless of what you think about why either party would want to look more closely at the voting process, reasonable people should be able to agree that the registration process is really messed up right now and that the voting methods we have in place are, if not ripe for error, at least unsecure enough that we can't even tell if they are working correctly or not. And those things should all be fixable.

I'm not so sure they are so easily fixable.

Voting is still controlled as a state function. The Federal government is already heavily involved in the process, but I wouldn't want to see more. Some states do it better than others, and to bring the scofflaws into line would probably require an additional amount of Federal government involvement which might be more damaging than not.

CID1990 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:If we do take a serious look at voting in this country, the two things that we have to figure out is 1) how to correct the voter rolls and 2) how to have an auditable voting system everywhere. It wasn't too long ago that some agency looked at the voting rolls and determined something like 20% of the rolls were inaccurate - people who have moved still listed in the precinct they moved from, people dead still there, people who had lost the right to vote were still there, and so on. And second, we shouldn't have voting machines where there is no way to audit that they haven't counted the wrong vote, or just missed votes entirely. I vote on a machine in PA where I press buttons to highlight my votes, and then I press one button to submit all my votes. I don't get a paper receipt showing what my votes were tallied as, and there's no duplicate copy kept anywhere. Whatever the machine has in it's storage is it. If the machine wasn't registering correctly, or if it mixed data at any point, no one would ever know.

Regardless of what you think about why either party would want to look more closely at the voting process, reasonable people should be able to agree that the registration process is really messed up right now and that the voting methods we have in place are, if not ripe for error, at least unsecure enough that we can't even tell if they are working correctly or not. And those things should all be fixable.

I'm not so sure they are so easily fixable.

Voting is still controlled as a state function. The Federal government is already heavily involved in the process, but I wouldn't want to see more. Some states do it better than others, and to bring the scofflaws into line would probably require an additional amount of Federal government involvement which might be more damaging than not.

I'm not sure I'd be against federal involvement. Heck, make a federal standard that just says that states running the elections must have 1) all voter rolls are fixed/validated every year 2) all voting machines/methods must generate two paper copies (that don't identify the voter) - one that stays with the voter and one that stays in the polling place. Even if the first one requires a national ID then I'm fine with it - we'd hardly be the first country with such a thing. In the end, this would put to bed things that both parties cry foul about and would greatly put to rest any notion that elections, at any level, are being manipulated with.

GannonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I'm not so sure they are so easily fixable.

Voting is still controlled as a state function. The Federal government is already heavily involved in the process, but I wouldn't want to see more. Some states do it better than others, and to bring the scofflaws into line would probably require an additional amount of Federal government involvement which might be more damaging than not.

I'm not sure I'd be against federal involvement. Heck, make a federal standard that just says that states running the elections must have 1) all voter rolls are fixed/validated every year 2) all voting machines/methods must generate two paper copies (that don't identify the voter) - one that stays with the voter and one that stays in the polling place. Even if the first one requires a national ID then I'm fine with it - we'd hardly be the first country with such a thing. In the end, this would put to bed things that both parties cry foul about and would greatly put to rest any notion that elections, at any level, are being manipulated with.

And therein lies the great conundrum, especially for the Libertarian-minded - the national ID.

I am getting to the point where I think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks as well. I think if we could get a national voter ID with some VERY strong laws against the data being used for anything other than poll ID then I'd probably be on board. The ID gets issued with proof of citizenship (not that difficult).

CID1990 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm not sure I'd be against federal involvement. Heck, make a federal standard that just says that states running the elections must have 1) all voter rolls are fixed/validated every year 2) all voting machines/methods must generate two paper copies (that don't identify the voter) - one that stays with the voter and one that stays in the polling place. Even if the first one requires a national ID then I'm fine with it - we'd hardly be the first country with such a thing. In the end, this would put to bed things that both parties cry foul about and would greatly put to rest any notion that elections, at any level, are being manipulated with.

And therein lies the great conundrum, especially for the Libertarian-minded - the national ID.

I am getting to the point where I think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks as well. I think if we could get a national voter ID with some VERY strong laws against the data being used for anything other than poll ID then I'd probably be on board. The ID gets issued with proof of citizenship (not that difficult).

It's so simple is why is hasn't been implemented yet. Everybody has their own niche reason why they want to stick with the current system of at least 50 different ways to do this. Voting should be simple and auditable. Right now our system is difficult and pretty much unauditable. You need someone not of the system like Trump to ram the fix through, but unfortunately he's too distracted ramming other stuff through.

GannonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
And therein lies the great conundrum, especially for the Libertarian-minded - the national ID.

I am getting to the point where I think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks as well. I think if we could get a national voter ID with some VERY strong laws against the data being used for anything other than poll ID then I'd probably be on board. The ID gets issued with proof of citizenship (not that difficult).

It's so simple is why is hasn't been implemented yet. Everybody has their own niche reason why they want to stick with the current system of at least 50 different ways to do this. Voting should be simple and auditable. Right now our system is difficult and pretty much unauditable. You need someone not of the system like Trump to ram the fix through, but unfortunately he's too distracted ramming other stuff through.

He can get to your request, but your wait time is approximately 30 days.

To quote Louis CK: "Give it a second! It's going to space. Can you give it a second to get back from space? Is the speed of light too slow for you?"

The President is busy not golfing.