Posted on Jan 25, 2017
Trump calls for 'major investigation' into debunked vote fraud claims
30.8K
103
79
12
12
0
Donald Trump
Election 2016
Office of the President (POTUS)
Voting
Fraud
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
10
10
0
"Unsubstantiated and debunked vote fraud". Unsubstantiated and debunked by whom? When did this investigation occur? Seems like just last week that the left was screaming about 'Russians hacking the election’ and giving the vote to Trump. In fact, there was a vote recount effort by the Independent Candidate based entirely on that premise.
If there is nothing amiss, then the investigation will show as much and Trump will get to eat a great big heaping helping of crow. However, if this investigation does find evidence of voter irregularities, or outright vote manipulation, then those responsible need to be held accountable.
You would think that all Americans (left, right, and center) would want this run to ground and the truth exposed. After all, undermining of the electoral process affects everyone and legitimately undermines the rule of law in our country.
So let’s have an open investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
If there is nothing amiss, then the investigation will show as much and Trump will get to eat a great big heaping helping of crow. However, if this investigation does find evidence of voter irregularities, or outright vote manipulation, then those responsible need to be held accountable.
You would think that all Americans (left, right, and center) would want this run to ground and the truth exposed. After all, undermining of the electoral process affects everyone and legitimately undermines the rule of law in our country.
So let’s have an open investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
(10)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
PO3 Donald Murphy - Your arguments are, for the most part, invalid.
Although some states do not bind Electoral College delegates to vote the way they were mandated, most do and impose penalties to those who do not.
Most of our states did not exist in 1776... What's your point? The Electoral College ensure that all voters in all states have a voice in the election of the President, not just a few large population centers.
Some states work on a winner-take-all, but some states do not. Again,regardless of how a state's system works, it each state a voice in the election, although there will always be "key" states due to the number of electoral votes they have.
Of the 3,084 counties in the United States, Hillary Clinton won 57, and most of those were in the large urban areas, as previously stated. That is not representative of "winning the American vote". Yes, she allegedly won the popular vote (with help of voter fraud and illegals), so, in fairness, she should be President of California if they secede. Other than that, I'll support the candidate (now President) who won 3,027 of our country's 3,084 counties.
Although some states do not bind Electoral College delegates to vote the way they were mandated, most do and impose penalties to those who do not.
Most of our states did not exist in 1776... What's your point? The Electoral College ensure that all voters in all states have a voice in the election of the President, not just a few large population centers.
Some states work on a winner-take-all, but some states do not. Again,regardless of how a state's system works, it each state a voice in the election, although there will always be "key" states due to the number of electoral votes they have.
Of the 3,084 counties in the United States, Hillary Clinton won 57, and most of those were in the large urban areas, as previously stated. That is not representative of "winning the American vote". Yes, she allegedly won the popular vote (with help of voter fraud and illegals), so, in fairness, she should be President of California if they secede. Other than that, I'll support the candidate (now President) who won 3,027 of our country's 3,084 counties.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Nope. Not invalid.
1. Google "faithless voters." There are no consequences for an electoral voter that does not vote the way he or she is mandated to vote.
2. Whats the point about California? Its the big fear of people who claim the EC protects them from it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't fear. Manifest Destiny was not a starting tennet of the constitution. So the writers/architects had no idea that the 49th colony would be the size of the country (England) they left. **IF** they knew that, then you'd have a point.
3. The EC works on winner takes all. This is why you fear California. Florida was a "republican" state yet I did not vote for Trump (or Hilary for that matter). So you can't blanketly assume that because I live in Florida, I'm a republican. Under one-man-one-vote, every vote would go to every candidate (like it does all over the world...eh?) and candidates would not be able to count on "an entire state." You don't "win" states in OMOV. When my English wife voted for BREXIT, her vote went to her decision. It wasn't dropped into a pool and assigned to a winner. As long as you have the EC you will *HAVE* to fear large states. I'm from California and I can tell you that ENTIRE state is DEFINATELY NOT LIBERAL. But, under EC, if 51% of the voters vote liberal, then the ENTIRE STATE is given to the liberal cause. Without the EC a candidate would have to win 51% of 50 million registered voters. This means they'd have to campaign everywhere. Want a great example? Do what I did and change your party affiliation to "NPA." You'll get every candidate at your door, on your phone and in your mailbox. Because they can't count on you. So they have to reach out to you. I had Ron Paul in my garage! Out of the blue. Had a good long talk about the USAF, etc. Just walked up out of blue. I was on his list as I'm not a dem or rep.
1. Google "faithless voters." There are no consequences for an electoral voter that does not vote the way he or she is mandated to vote.
2. Whats the point about California? Its the big fear of people who claim the EC protects them from it. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't fear. Manifest Destiny was not a starting tennet of the constitution. So the writers/architects had no idea that the 49th colony would be the size of the country (England) they left. **IF** they knew that, then you'd have a point.
3. The EC works on winner takes all. This is why you fear California. Florida was a "republican" state yet I did not vote for Trump (or Hilary for that matter). So you can't blanketly assume that because I live in Florida, I'm a republican. Under one-man-one-vote, every vote would go to every candidate (like it does all over the world...eh?) and candidates would not be able to count on "an entire state." You don't "win" states in OMOV. When my English wife voted for BREXIT, her vote went to her decision. It wasn't dropped into a pool and assigned to a winner. As long as you have the EC you will *HAVE* to fear large states. I'm from California and I can tell you that ENTIRE state is DEFINATELY NOT LIBERAL. But, under EC, if 51% of the voters vote liberal, then the ENTIRE STATE is given to the liberal cause. Without the EC a candidate would have to win 51% of 50 million registered voters. This means they'd have to campaign everywhere. Want a great example? Do what I did and change your party affiliation to "NPA." You'll get every candidate at your door, on your phone and in your mailbox. Because they can't count on you. So they have to reach out to you. I had Ron Paul in my garage! Out of the blue. Had a good long talk about the USAF, etc. Just walked up out of blue. I was on his list as I'm not a dem or rep.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
PO3 Donald Murphy - Once again, what you say is only partially true. Democrats allow votes of "faithless voters" to count whereas Republicans do not. In addition, some states have laws that penalize delegates who fail to vote the way they were elected to.
We could debate the EC all day and neither of us would change our minds. I, for one, am perfectly happy with how the system works. The Democrats would be too, if the results in the past election were reversed.
There is no need to beat this dead horse any more... Thanks for joining the discussion. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
We could debate the EC all day and neither of us would change our minds. I, for one, am perfectly happy with how the system works. The Democrats would be too, if the results in the past election were reversed.
There is no need to beat this dead horse any more... Thanks for joining the discussion. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Both sides have had EC failures where the popularly voted candidate did not win the Electoral Votes. Its not just a democrat thing. As per my initial point many threads ago - both sides complain of voter fraud, cheating, etc. Not just the losing side. And neither side (at least when I was an election worker) were in any hurry to fix it.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
Debunked by whom? Has there really been an investigation or is it a biased industry with a complicit globalist agenda making editorialized claims.
(5)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
Exactly. just because a liberal reporter turned his/her nose up at the suggestion does not mean the claim was debunked. In fact, the louder they scream, like the 'settled science' claims of recent history, the more suspicious we all should be.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see) this is not the scandal you are looking for... said in my best Obi Wan voice.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google