Does Trump not realize that he could be leaving himself dangerously wide open in investigating the election?

What he wants out of it is the name and address of every single citizen who voted against him, so he can enact repressions against them.
And even if this Drumpf-controlled investigation were to find something that would incriminate the Orangutan, you know as well as anyone that these results would disappear immediately.
In fact, I fully expect that blobtit to fake the results anyway.

Well, he won’t GET any results. The states, even Kansas, are refusing to comply.

By controlling the “investigation”, he controls the outcome. And then he proposes ” anti-fraud voting” legislation that restricts access to the ballot.

He isn’t actually interested in investigating voter fraud. This is just one more salvo in the GOP’s long war to disenfranchise certain voting blocks. That and/or he (or Big Daddy Vladdie) has even more nefarious plans for the data he’s asking for.

It’s called “delusions of grandeur” Trump cannot be convinced that he lost the popular vote regardless of the evidence. It wouldn’t matter if the verdict on the issue were delivered by God Himself. No one can compile a dossier of Trump’s declarations and behaviors without concluding that there are some serious defects in his mental drive train. It is actually interesting to watch as various politicians, world leaders and potentates are compelled to deal with him as though he were “normal”.

If this were true, Trump would have won the popular vote, not the electoral college vote.

When Trump won, there was widespread denial and re-counts and all sorts of investigation, Jill Stein, of the Green Party, had several states in the upper midwest— I think they didn’t investigate Pennsylvania.

There were even democrats and others, funded by George Soros and the Clinton foundation, that attempted to pay the fines if state delegates would vote differently than their electoral colleges indicated—but even this would not have changed the outcome. You can’t buy an election.

We know voter fraud occurs and is far from rare. It is sometimes investigated on site at poling places In 2009, someone voted in my name and even signed a paper saying that they were me. I even saw the paper and signature. Whereas I DID get to vote that day, chances are whoever voted fraudulently did not vote as I would have, so that fraudulent vote was an extra vote that ‘de facto’ nullified or neutralized my vote.

Trump did very well all over the U,S, except New York and California, I have seen maps that indicate or support that a lot of the anti-Trump voting coincides with places where there are many illegal immigrants or non-citizens.

I would welcome any investigation into voter fraud and am curious why anyone wouldn’t be concerned about this issue.

It’s not that we protest looking into voter fraud. We protest releasing our most private information, especially against our will.

@Yellowdog

Voter fraud has been investigated. Many times. It’s been proven to be statistically a non-issue. Every measure implemented in the name of combating voter fraud invariably ends up disenfranchising minorities and the poor. This is by intent.

THANK YOU!

All you need is a state-issued I.D.

If this isn’t required, you can say you’re anyone.

Identity Theft and Voter Fraud are both rare, but they both affect us about the same. If it happened to me, even though a long time ago, it happens.

You don’t want it investigated because you KNOW who is committing voter fraud and how they vote.

Let the fool investigate voter fraud. So what does it matter if the rate is statistically meaningless? The egomaniac cannot accept that he was not defrauded of the popular vote. Perhaps his pursuit of this boneheaded endeavor will distract hom from more dangerous nonsense.

We don’t mind if it’s investigated @Yellowdog.

@Yellowdog

You willing to pay for every voter to have an acceptable state-issued ID at taxpayer expense?

Well, we all pretty much need one anyway to get anything done.

That’s beside the point.

It is? How is it beside the point?

That most people likely already have IDs is irrelevant to the question of IDs being required in order to exercise your right to vote. Requiring an ID in order to vote without providing that ID free-of-charge effectively amounts to a poll tax. Poll taxes are a violation of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

People who haven’t bothered to get IDs don’t seem like the kind of people who would vote, anyway.

So that justifies disregarding the Constitution?

What? No! What is wrong with showing ID, anyway?

Did I argue that there was anything wrong with showing ID?

I agree that the right to vote is sacrosanct. If the state (or anyone else) is going to require proof of identity, the state has the obligation to provide voters the necessary documents, and in matters of dispute, the onus of proof should not be on the voter. In other words, if you claim the right to vote, you shouldn’t be forced to prove it. The state should be compelled to demonstrate your ineligibility.

In order to receive any government benefits, including EBT/SNAP. you must have a State Issued I.D. In order to cash a check, pay by check or money order,, rent or live in housing, including public and government housing, you need a state-issued I.D.

In order to buy alcohol or tobacco, you need a state-issued I.D. You need a state issues I.D. to obtain a pass for public transportation,

Maybe some people cannot keep up with their I.D, but everyone doing anything or receiving anything has one.

Voter fraud Is common enough that polling places have to deal with it when the right person comes to vote. If I have to have an I.D. to prove I am who I am and someone voted in m name, then the fraudulent voters ought to have to do the same.

Aside from voting with a stolen identity, many vote in multiple districts or states using ther own identity. All you have to do is sign a paper.

SNAP, check cashing, purchasing alcohol, etc are not Constitutional rights.

I don’t understand what your argument is @Darth_Algar.

@Dutchess_III

What is confusing to you about it?

You argue about tax payers paying for state ID, and would we be willing to do that. Then you argue IDs shouldn’t be necessary due to the Constitution. Then you agree there is nothing wrong with showing ID. So what is your disagreement with showing ID for voting purposes?

@Dutchess_III

You’re not reading my posts very well. Are you just skimming them?

I did not argue that IDs shouldn’t be necessary due to the Constitution. I argued that if a state is going to require an ID in order to vote then that ID must be provided free of charge to the individual (which, of course, means that the cost of the IDs are footed via tax dollars). Otherwise it effectively amounts to a poll tax, which is a violation of the Constitution.

Thanks for clarifying, Darth.
Well, if a person really wants to vote they need to get an ID. If a person wants to drive they need to get a license. If a person wants to sell real estate, they need to get a license. If a person wants to hunt or fish, they need to get a license.
If the government was forcing them to vote (which isn’t a bad idea) then yes. They should foot the cost of getting an id for the people.
No one forces someone to drive or fish or vote. People have to take responsibility to take the steps to make it possible for them to drive or fish or vote.

Driving isn’t a constitutional right. Selling real estate isn’t a constitutional right. Fishing isn’t a constitutional right. Voting is.

They’re rights. They are also choices. Voting is a right. It’s also a choice.
What kind of person wouldn’t have some sort of ID, anyway?

Whether a person would have an ID anyway is not relevant. The kind of person who would not have an ID is not relevant. That someone who doesn’t have an ID “probably wouldn’t vote anyway” is not relevant. The only things that are relevant to the point are the requirement (as a condition of voting) and the cost to the individual.

But having an ID as a condition of voting, to prove you are a US citizen, is something you agree with?

Not necessarily, as one has already demostrated their eligibility to vote upon registering to vote. But neither do I specifically oppose the idea out-of-hand. However, if a state is going to require an ID as a condition of voting then that ID must be provided free-of-charge.

But to register you have to show ID.

Each state varies. For Illinois, from what I recall (granted, it’s been more than 20 years since I registered to vote, and I’ve kept my registry up-to-date ever since) a photo ID was one proof accepted, but not required. Besides, an ID itself only establishes residence, not citizenship (I seem to recall presenting a copy of my birth certificate).

there are very practical reasons why voter fraud is at such miniscule levels in this country. The first is that it is a very inefficient crime to pull off effectively, and the second is that in order to be even mildly effective, the numbers of conspirators required eliminate any chance at secrecy.

^Yep.