192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 12:33 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

In many of the larger states, California being one, there is no distinction between the databases of citizens and non-citizens. There is nothing to prevent the illegal aliens from voting. There is no way to tell a citizen from a non-citizen. “In other words, the flood gates are open,” Engelbrecht says.


http://www.independentsentinel.com/non-citizens-will-now-vote-in-at-least-one-state/


Trump LIES!!!! He can't PROVE that non-citizens voted.!!!

Of course not, these "sanctuary" cities and states destroy all the evidence.

Trump knows what he's saying though. He knows that the media will repeatedly denounce him as a liar. He will let it go on--in fact he invites it. The chumps.

Now he has the entire FBI, ICE, etc. at his disposal. Within a few months the proof will be amassed. Then it will be made public.

Then the citizenry will be more convinced than ever (if that's possible) that the media can't be trusted.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 12:38 am
@layman,
Quote layman's partisan blog link:
Quote:
Governor Jerry Brown just sold out the American vote in California. He signed a new version of the Motor Voter Act that will register every eligible California citizen who acquires a driver’s license or renews a license at the Department of Motor Vehicles to vote.

So what's wrong with that? Even that hysterical blog admits that the law will register every eligible voter to vote. Lots of states have that. Where's the fire, chief?
Blickers
 
  5  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 12:41 am
@layman,
Quote layman:
Quote:
I think Clinton got over 90% of the vote in California--100% of the non-citizen vote, no doubt.

Before you can say that, you first have to prove that the non-citizen vote even exists. Which you haven't. So far all you've got is that California allows eligible voters to register to vote at the Motor Vehicle Department. Horrors! That's only been going on all over the country for decades.

PS: Hillary got 62% of the vote in California-when are you going to try arguing from facts for once?
layman
 
  -2  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 12:44 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

So what's wrong with that? Even that hysterical blog admits that the law will register every eligible voter to vote. Lots of states have that. Where's the fire, chief?


Read on, eh? Particularly the part where you run across "...will guarantee that noncitizens will participate in all California elections going forward,”
glitterbag
 
  6  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 12:45 am
According to slopes.com, Gov. Brown never signed a bill allowing non-cities to vote. And after checking Jessica Medina archived columns, I can find no proof she ever wrote such an article. Further, the links below each laymen statements seem to be written in an entirely different style.
Blickers
 
  5  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:00 am
@layman,
Quote layman:
Quote:
Read on, eh? Particularly the part where you run across "...will guarantee that noncitizens will participate in all California elections going forward,”



Participate in as poll watchers, not as voters. From your own link:
Quote:
One new state law allows legal permanent residents to monitor polls during elections, help translate instructions and offer other assistance to voting citizens.

Incidentally, anybody can be a poll watcher. But the law does not allow noncitizens to vote at all. Most poll stations have a Democratic watcher and a Republican watcher, but you don't have to belong to a party to be a poll watcher. In other words, a noncitizen Hispanic can be a poll watcher or assist an American citizen Hispanic voter who has trouble with English to vote.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:00 am
Quote:
The person applying for a Drivers License only has to “attest” that they meet all eligibility requirements in order to be registered to vote. No documentation is required to prove citizenship or legal status. Here is an example: I can attest that I have a 32 inch waist and weigh 165 lbs, but that doesn’t make it true. That means a person can simply say “Yes” I am eligible and be registered to vote.

Now some have argued with us, that documentation can be requested as proof and if they are unable to provide it, they will be refused to register to vote. Wrong.

Section 2263 Clause (D) states as follows:

(d) The department shall not electronically provide records of a person who applies for or is issued a driver’s license pursuant to Section 12801.9 of the Vehicle Code because he or she is unable to submit satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.

This means the person in the DMV will not be turned down for a Drivers License and voter registration after the DMV has noted an attestation to eligibility. Zero documentation is required.

Sections 2268 and Section 2269 states as follows:

2268.

If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.

2269.

If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.


https://rawconservative.com/2015/10/california-illegal-immigrant-voter-law-explained/

As was stated, this "effectively" gives them the right to vote without repercussions.

All they have to do is check one little box, as Podesta said. What if it's a lie? No problem, you can't be prosecuted. You will be PRESUMED to have "acted with official authorization."

Mexicans have long planned to take over the State of California. Now they are doing it. They are electing Mexican mayors, legislators, etc. and, as you can see, the know how to take care of their own. Close to 50% of California residents are of Mexican descent, if not outright citizens of Mexico.
Blickers
 
  5  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:14 am
@layman,
It's not legal to vote if you are not a citizen.

You purposely left your quote unsourced. Your quote is just an opinion piece. Once again, you have no proof that noncitizens voted at all, in California or anywhere else.

Bear in mind that illegal aliens know they can be deported if discovered, so they don't like to flash any ID around if they can help it. Why would an illegal alien go down to vote and expose themselves to discovery after all the effort they spent to get here? Tell me that.
Blickers
 
  3  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:17 am
@glitterbag,
Quote glitterbag:
Quote:
And after checking Jessica Medina archived columns, I can find no proof she ever wrote such an article.

Which article did Jessica Medina allegedly write? Can you give a quote from it?
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:22 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

It's not legal to vote if you are not a citizen.

You purposely left your quote unsourced. Your quote is just an opinion piece. Once again, you have no proof that noncitizens voted at all, in California or anywhere else.

Bear in mind that illegal aliens know they can be deported if discovered, so they don't like to flash any ID around if they can help it. Why would an illegal alien go down to vote and expose themselves to discovery after all the effort they spent to get here? Tell me that.


I added the source, but better if you just look directly at the laws of the State of California. They are online, and the relevant code sections are provided.

As to your second question, read all the statutes I posted. The answer is there.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:33 am
Once last excerpt:

Quote:
There are no voter ID laws in California. You do not have to present an ID to vote in the state of California so how could this law possibly be enforced, even if every Illegal Alien “told the truth”. The truth is, it can’t. Illegal Aliens will be allowed to vote in California because of this law. The Obama administration and it’s Justice Department already refuse to enforce existing immigration laws. They aren’t about to start now…especially in a state with 55 Electoral Votes.


This California law CANNOT change the federal law that makes it illegal for non-citizens to vote in FEDERAL elections. They can vote in a state elections if their state permits it.

But it can, and does, refuse to verify compliance with the law, and exonerates those violating it.

All the non-citizen has to say is: "I didn't know I wasn't qualified to vote. Everybody does. All my friends do. The DMV tells us to. The people at the polls give us the ballots, no questions asked" etc.

The "Podesta Plan," eh?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 01:44 am
@Blickers,
My laptop is not cooperating right now. I need to copy and paste the link that layman claims is the article, but if you check Medina's archives there is no evidence she wrote that particular article. His link will connect you to an 'article' but I don't think it's authentic.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 02:02 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

PS: Hillary got 62% of the vote in California-when are you going to try arguing from facts for once?


OK, you're right. I said "I think" because I had heard that, but never bothered to verify it. She still got 100% of the non-citizen vote, I'm sure.

Overall, Clinton got about 4.3 million more votes than Trump in CA, per the NYT.

Country-wide she won by what? About 2.9 Million or something? Take out CA and Trump won in the other 49 states.

I'm sure Clinton could get elected as President of the People's Republic of California tomorrow, if she wanted.

She's just waiting for them to secede.

Problem is, they aint gunna secede. They are gunna annex themselves to Mexico.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 02:47 am
Quote:
Nancy Pelosi and the Other Hounds of Hell Unleash on Judge Gorsuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch is the Republican nominee for Supreme Court Justice. His background is impeccable but the Democrats are already screaming that he is “dangerous”. Nancy Pelosi was railing against him at a townhall this evening. She couldn’t find a single nice thing to say and many on the left are tweeting that she’s coming up with very cogent arguments.

Nancy Pelosi was one of the first out of the gate. She called Judge Gorsuch, “a very hostile appointment”. She said he’s a very “radical” and “well outside the mainstream."

The negative tweets are rolling in....


http://www.independentsentinel.com/hounds-of-hell-about-to-be-unleashed-on-judge-gorsuch/

That's rich. Commie-ass Pelosi calling a highly respected federal judge (unanimously confirmed) a "radical," eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 03:34 am
I've now read the article Oreally posted. Some excerpts:

Quote:
The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump’s assertion with derision. Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud.

CNN’s Jake Tapper called it “a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence — there is no evidence. It is not true.

Esquire.com said, “The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump’s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won.”

[comment: They done took the bait, sho nuff]

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud....“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

[comment: Sheeit, that don't prove nuthin, right?]

In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling.

Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov.

Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted.

Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.

[Comment: Still aint proved ****, eh?]

Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Liberal leaders have created “sanctuary cities” across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the daunting task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship. In some states, no ID is required to register and vote.

[Comment: Haha. See there! Ya can't prove ****! Oh, wait....]

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

Trump now has the FBI, ICE, and other federal agencies in the process of rounding up the evidence 24/7. There goes a big-ass chunk of your always-faithful voters, eh, Dems?

Y'all should never, NEVER, I SAY, have let Trump win. You're toast now, and your commie-ass media homies are goin down with ya.

Either way, ya won't be gittin no votes from Pedro or Abdul no more. They aint gunna be around to vote in the next election.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 04:16 am
What!? CNN Double-Crossing Pelosi?

Quote:
It wasn’t flashy or sensational. Instead, President Donald Trump delivered a somber and solemn Supreme Court nomination is less time than it takes to drive a few blocks in D.C. during rush hour. And most of the media ate it up. Even US Weekly was paying attention.

Damon Linker, senior correspondent for The Week, summed up what for many was reluctant praise: “That was the most presidential seven minutes of Donald Trump's presidency so far, and most normal.”

Commentators were obviously impressed with what actually happened. “This is how it’s supposed to be done. I mean this is done to the T,” commented CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash.

Another CNN Political Analyst, David Gregory, was so complimentary that he got four-lettered Twitter pushback, which he then retweeted. “Tonight represents a stroke of genius/obstruction by Senator McConnell who saw to it Judge Garland never got a hearing,” he wrote.

His response to the F-bomb tweet was quick. “All you haters on twitter need to get out of your bubbles - not everyone thinks like you. I provide analysis. Take it or leave it.”


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/31/trump-delivers-somber-scotus-nomination-and-even-liberal-media-offer-reluctant-praise.html

"Stroke of genius" by McConnel to stall off Garland!? Has CNN gone plumb whack, I ask ya? Obviously bribed by Trump, eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 04:50 am
They Really, I Mean, Like, REALLY Want to Keep Their Illegal Voters, Eh?

Quote:
San Francisco sues Trump over executive order targeting sanctuary cities

San Francisco sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, charging that its crackdown on sanctuary cities violates the state rights provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

San Francisco, one of 400 sanctuary cities and counties in the country, stands to lose more than $1.2 billion a year in federal funding, most of it for healthcare, nutrition and other programs for the poor, according to San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera.

San Francisco’s sanctuary law prohibits local law enforcement officers from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention requests and limits when the officers may notify the federal agency of a person’s release from jail.

The law prohibits San Francisco officials from holding an individual who is eligible for release from jail on the basis of a civil immigration detention request from the federal government. The city does honor criminal warrants, the suit said.


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-francisco-trump-20170131-story.html

Are they kidding? Can ya BELIEVE the gall of it all!? They really think it is a "state's right" to violate, thwart, and sabotage federal law? Maybe they should consult Lester Maddox, George Wallace and Bull Connor about that, eh? Jeff Davis could probably school them too, know what I'm sayin?

Not giving them handouts doesn't "force" them to do anything. The "force" will come when Trump sends in tanks and militia men to take the aliens they want. Then they can't just hide and watch, penniless, and refuse to do anything to help.

Good luck with that, cheese-eaters.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 05:17 am
@layman,
Quote:
Well, yeah, Ollie, but the judge here wasn't any of those things.


Well yeah, Layboy, but who gives a flying rat's ass what particular excuse Trump picked? It's just an excuse. If the judge had been a Yankees fan, the excuse would be "What do you expect of a Yankees fan?"...


layman
 
  0  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 05:46 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Well, yeah, Ollie, but the judge here wasn't any of those things.


Well yeah, Layboy, but who gives a flying rat's ass what particular excuse Trump picked? It's just an excuse. If the judge had been a Yankees fan, the excuse would be "What do you expect of a Yankees fan?"...


Yeah, exactly. Just like I always say about you, ya know?

What else would expect from a damn Frog, anyway?

The Yankees suck, too.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2017 05:50 am
@layman,
Exactly. That's what cowards do.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.48 seconds on 08/21/2025 at 08:22:59