Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Trumps Keeps Kicking That Sleeping Dog

CNN Trump's Thin Skin
"He's already triggered a furious backlash on Capitol Hill after repeating his conspiracy theory about his failure to win the popular vote in front of congressional leaders on Monday, according to several sources.  "If the President of the United States is claiming that 3.5 million people voted illegally, that shakes confidence in our democracy -- he needs to disclose why he believes that," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN on Tuesday.
"Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, said he saw no evidence of widespread voter fraud.  "I would suggest the White House looks in their windshield and not the rearview mirror. They did something that nobody thought they could do. They should be proud (of) that and not let this be a distraction," Hurd told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." 
There are also longer term implications for Trump's failure to develop a thicker skin.
His White House will face far more political pressure and unflattering press coverage in the future than it does now.
Is he crazy / stupid?  Or is it like a magician who wants to keep our attention focused elsewhere as he does his trick? Thoughts? 




61 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do think Trump is mentally ill. He has delusions of reports he has never seen, awards he has never been given, detectives who have never been sent to Hawaii. I expect within the near future, discussions of the possible implementation of the 25th amendment will be entering the mainstream. While it's always impossible that it will, it's hard for me to imagine that the charade of the Trump presidency will continue for four years.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Donald Trump reminds me of Sterling Hayden in "Doctor Strangelove". The implicit irony of that movie is being brought to the fore by current events. I don't General Ripper, the character played by Hayden suddenly went crazy. I believe that he had been crazy for quite some time, but because of other qualities he might have had, people didn't see it, or they did see it, and just hoped for the best. We need, as a nation, come together and think about stopping the madness before it's too late, that among other things, the nuclear holocaust that concludes the movie doesn't become a reality.

--Hiram

John said...

Next Trump will be saying...

"I read things and am smart, so I know I am correct... Though I don't remember where I read it and am unwilling to share that source with you even if I find it. Because you may interpret it differently."

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Trump does remember things, but the things didn't happen. That's what brings the 25th amendment into play. He remembers sending investigators to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate. He remembers getting reports from them indicating the certificate was a forgery. The list of these delusions is long and it's getting longer.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Back to voter fraud, OK? The old saw still applies, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Trump can actually make this claim quite credibly because no procedures are in place to find (and preferably stop) voter fraud from taking place. Just in Minnesota, we have found many known felons who voted. Every year we see evidence of multiple voting at least being attempted. Same day registrants are subsequently unverified. The Secretary of State has refused to purge the rolls of dead people in the past, and has required that out-of-state drivers licenses be accepted as proof of citizenship when 15 other states grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. MN state law actually PERMITS college students to vote absentee at home and same day at school.

Those [mostly Democrats] who say that voter fraud does not occur could quickly prove themselves correct. Simply accept all of the election reforms proposed by Republicans, making it nearly impossible for fraud to occur. If no attempts at fraud are then detected, Democrats will be proven correct and no harm will be done. If fraud IS prevented, Republicans will be proven right and the right thing-- stopping this fraud-- will have been done. What's wrong with doing the right thing?

Anonymous said...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

It isn't? When did that happen?

Just a reminder, having an ID is not evidence of qualification to vote. Many people including many citizens have ID but aren't qualified to vote. What ID does do, is prevent impostor voting. But if that were a serious problem there would be multiple reports of real voters trying to vote only to find that impostors had already voted in their place. Has that been a problem?

--Hiram

John said...

Yes... Let's harshly restrict the access to vote in order to prove that little voter fraud exists.

Maybe next you will be insisting that everyone be required to blow in a breathalyzer while leaving movie theaters to prove that few fans get drunk while watching the movie.

Get real... There are not 4 or 5 million foreigners who would risk their freedom to stay here, just to vote... Trump is an idiot regarding this topic who just can't let it go... The idea that he barely won in the "rigged" system, the majority of Americans are against and he has no significant mandate is killing him...

Anonymous said...

I like the recommendation floating around that if there actually were 3-5 million illegals votes, then the this is an invalid election. We need to throw it out and have a new one.

#Alt-facts #Alt-news #Alt-reality

Joel

Anonymous said...

As someone involved in elections where I find it hard enough to get qualified voters out to vote, the notion that there are millions of illegal voters streaming to the polls does seem absurd. An illegal alien, basically, knows he can stay in the country indefinitely as long as he avoids the attention of the authorities. So why would such a person go out of his way to register to vote, both inviting scrutiny of his status, and also committing a felony just to vote?

As maybe you can tell, I pretty much walk around these days in a perpetual state of aggravation. One of the things that aggravate me most is our inability in this country to decide anything. You watch a football game these days and half your time is spent watching refs huddle over a video replay. Now we have Trump seeking to relitigate an election that he already, and indisputably won. What sense does that make?

We can make elections more secure. The amount of money and effort we could spend doing that is practically limitless. But really, don't we have better things to do? And where would constantly reviewing elections get us, particularly when elections already happen every two years. Would we end reviewing elections for terms of office that have already expired? What happens if we find a congressman wasn't really elected in 2012? Would the laws enacted during his term be invalidated?

--Hiram

John said...

Joel,
I like that idea... Or if he does want to check votes, he should be doing it for ALL STATES... Not just the ones he LOST by huge margins.

Hiram,
Agreed, they would have no desire to take the risk.

Anonymous said...

We can put a lot of money in this. One thin we can do is check citizenship of all registered voters on a national basis. This kind of a project would take some years, but it can be done. Do we want to do it?

--Hiram

John said...

I think we should all have a National ID with a lot of data behind it.
- citizenship status
- address
- donor data
- welfare recipient status
- voter status
- gun privilege status
- medicare status
- etc

Unfortunately the people who fear big government fight this simple logical efficient effective tool.

Anonymous said...

What you are proposing is pretty expensive and would require a lot of labor. Are you sure there aren't better uses for the money? Determining citizenship would be a pretty massive effort in itself, involving state and local cooperation and years of litigation. And then it has to be re-done when someone moves?

By the way, I have always assumed that voter ID is about just that; verifying the person presenting himself to vote is who he says he is. Do people want it to be more than that? That as people vote, their should be some sort of review of their right to vote? What form would this take?

For gun privilege, can I have an entry to the effect that it's my privilege not to be shot by guns? It seems only fair that if other people have a constitutional right to bear arms, I should have a constitutional right not to be shot by one.

--Hiram

John said...

Yes a national database would need to be created which could be used to ensure consistent data is available as a person moves around the country or if they die... No more hiding things by changing states, etc.

I think it would save a whole lot more than it would cost. Unfortunately it will likely never happen given how freaked out the conspiracy theorists are by the Real ID requirements.

MPR Real ID MN

Anonymous said...


I think it would save a whole lot more than it would cost

How much would spending the money it would take to research your birth certificate save the nation in the long run? We are talking about 300 million searches.

--Hiram

John said...

Well since many of us already have a passport, the work is already done.

And for majority of American's the documents needed to obtain a passport are readily available.

John said...

MJ Friendly National ID

Anonymous said...

Well since many of us already have a passport, the work is already done.

Individuals won't be assessed the costs of the background check. That would constitute an unconstitutional poll tax. The government would and does have to pay all expenses associated with any voter ID.

--Hiram

John said...

Apparently they do not since driver's licenses can be used as a valid form of ID.

Though you are correct that the ID would need to be free for the poor folks.

Anonymous said...

"Though you are correct that the ID would need to be free for the poor folks."

It would need to be free for everyone. A poll tax is a poll tax whether you are rich or poor.

Joel

Anonymous said...

The poll tax plan applies to everyone, not just the poor. And the fact is proving citizenship can be quite difficult and quite expensive. And of course, a lot of people are going to be quite resentful of the government snooping around their past. It would be a mess.

--HIram

John said...

Politifact Identification and Poll Tax

jerrye92002 said...

"But if that were a serious problem there would be multiple reports of real voters trying to vote only to find that impostors had already voted in their place. Has that been a problem?" --Hiram

Yes, it has been shown to have occurred many times in the last election. And I should point out that some of the "complainants" have been dead a long time.

"Would we end reviewing elections for terms of office that have already expired?"
-- Hiram

I simply point out that MN still does not, at this point, know how many same-day registrants actually cast legal ballots because the data has not yet been entered, despite those ballots having been counted on Election Day.

As for Voter ID, I point out that MN used to have a law requiring non-citizens to have a "non-citizen" marker on their drivers license, and election judges to check for it. Problem solved, which is why our last Secretary of State did away with the instruction.

John said...

Source?

"Yes, it has been shown to have occurred many times in the last election. And I should point out that some of the "complainants" have been dead a long time. "

jerrye92002 said...

News reports not available from the anti-Trump MSM. Like the new NYT motto "all the news that fits the narrative."

Here's one of many.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/25/report-dead-voters-found-voting-california/

John said...

Actually the study was conducted and reported by CBS...

Breitbart Dead Voters

CBS Investigation

"It remains unclear how the dead voters voted but 86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats, including Cenkner."

Now though it would be nice if they would get rid of those few errors or fraud...

I don't think
300 errors
14,000,000 votes

Is many...

John said...

California Vote Results

jerrye92002 said...

OK, so how many fraudulent votes are acceptable? Do we have acceptable numbers of burglaries, assaults, or rapes? If it was unavoidable, that would be one thing, but these cases are entirely avoidable.

I find it amusing that they list the registrations of the dead people. Are we supposed to believe that the people who actually voted followed the dead people's wishes in that regard? And remember this was only the fraud found in one quick investigation in one small locality. Until we preclude the possibility to the degree possible, we cannot say with accuracy who wins any election. Imagine if there were 300 fraudulent votes cast for Al Franken in his first election, compared with if they were not?

John said...

Actually yes we do have an acceptable number of burglaries, assaults and rapes. Just like we have an acceptable number of car accidents, plane crashes, pipeline leaks, etc.

Bad things happen in life and we always balance them against the costs of protecting against them. You are starting to sound like a Liberal who wants to over regulate and over monitor in an effort to protect everyone from everything.

As I mention elsewhere, a simple single national database and ID system would solve all these problems and many more, and yet many like yourself are against that. I mean every American resident would have 1 home address, 1 voter status and if you die your status is changed to DEAD. No concerns about the many databases not being in sync.

John said...

By the way, since we know there is error in the system... That is why there are mechanisms to trigger automatic recounts.

jerrye92002 said...

The problem isn't the recount if all of the errors are counted just as in the original. And there is a vast difference between auto theft and an auto accident. One has a perpetrator and commits a criminal act. There are many election reforms that could be done without a national database. We should start there, but Democrats fight it tooth and nail. One suspects they have a vested interest in voter fraud.

John said...

We also could stop all auto thefts, however it likely just is not worth the cost and/or inconvenience.

The unfortunate reality is that some Conservatives want to keep increasing the voting hurdles so that the young, poor, minority and highly mobile people will just give up and stop voting. They are very aware that those groups are more negatively impacted by the strict photo ID laws and the they often vote for Democratic candidate.

John said...

With that in mind it seems the Republicans have a HUGE vested interest in throwing up hurdles to keep the young, poor, mobile and minorities from voting.

Between gerrymandering and election games by both parties, it is amazing we do as well as we do...

jerrye92002 said...

You believe what you want to believe. I would say that Republicans have a very deep interest in insuring election integrity and preventing voter fraud. Stealing an election is a high crime against society as a whole, and against our form of government. The notion that minorities, etc. are most impacted is a strictly Democrat canard thrown up to enable them to continue to steal elections through fraud. Most lawsuits against voter ID fail because, when asked to produce someone with "standing" in the case-- i.e. someone denied the right to vote because they are unable to get a proper ID-- plaintiffs fail to find one. Indeed, every voter ID law proposed makes it possible for anybody legally entitled to vote to get one.

I thought a recent "man on the street" interview, done in upper Harlem, was most telling. Asked if they knew how to get an ID, about half were surprised at the question and said of course. The other half were insulted at the question and said of course. Liberals and Democrats, of course, seem perfectly willing to believe that poor and minority people are too stupid to know how to vote, and therefore they have to make it easy for them, just assuming that stupid people vote Democrat.

John said...

"Stealing an election is a high crime against society as a whole, and against our form of government."

We agree on this, be it by allowing illegitimate voters to vote or preventing legitimate voters from voting.

Both parties seem determined to support that crime in the name of their self interests.

jerrye92002 said...

Ah, but does one necessarily create the other? What is there about preventing illegitimate voters from voting that prevents legitimate voters from voting? And before you do the usual liberal ad hominem and ascribe evil motivations to Republicans, consider that all they may really want is to have people follow the law, and if doing so means the Democrats do not get their usual millions of illegitimate votes, that's just a happy side effect?

John said...


Difference in Burden.

I am well off and have not changed residence for 20+ years...
Strict voter ID is no problem.

A young, poor and/or homeless mobile person...
Strict voter ID is a significant burden.

Such silliness... "their usual millions of illegitimate votes" Source?

jerrye92002 said...

"Such silliness... "their usual millions of illegitimate votes" Source?"

No dice. I am not going to prove that it does take place. The burden is on you to prove that it does not. Right now I can make up any number I want and you cannot prove me wrong, because the possibility exists that illegal votes can be cast, and in large numbers. Just here in MN, there were 600,000 same-day registrants who cast ballots, and all of those votes have been counted. If we later find that 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 of those votes were illegally cast (even assuming we have the tools to determine that), how do we find out which ballots those are, and what would it matter?

John said...

So you want to make significant changes and make it hard for many people to vote because there may or may not be a problem of any significance.

Hopefully you do not get your wish anytime soon... I think the voices of the poor, young and highly mobile should be heard via their vote.

jerrye92002 said...

No, I want to make some trivial changes that make it hard for ineligible and fraudulent voters to vote, because there IS a significant problem. And if I am wrong, nothing is lost.

Apparently you did not take the message I did from those interviews in Harlem. Those folks seem to think they could vote just fine, and some felt insulted that you thought otherwise. I recall that, in one jurisdiction, there were more people voting after election reforms (voter ID, I think) than before. Can we risk that happening?

John said...

Please note that New York has no voter ID requirement. So asking someone there if they could provide an ID with their having no idea how challenging the Strict ID reqts are is somewhat pointless.

jerrye92002 said...

The question was asked, do you have a drivers license and do you know where to get one. Most of them knew exactly, which in a big city with good public transportation is actually a bit surprising. Maybe it is because so many of our other daily activities require an ID. I think it is insulting to minorities for liberals to go to court and try to prove that these folks are too incompetent to get an ID and yet they are competent enough to be allowed to vote. You are the one that keeps calling them irresponsible to even raise their own children. Do you claim they should be voting on how everybody ELSE raises their children? If they are responsible enough to vote they should be responsible enough to take the step required to qualify to vote. And if they do not even want to vote, why is it even an issue?

John said...

First, please remember that Strict Voter ID laws are much more complicated than just having a Picture ID. It must be a current ID with a current address, etc. That is why it is hard for the poor, young and mobile to keep it up.

And for better or worse I do believe that every legal voter should be allowed and encouraged to vote. No matter how Conservative, Liberal, Rich, Poor, etc... The good news is that most of the irresponsible Baby Makers are too irresponsible to go out and vote. Thank heavens!!!

jerrye92002 said...

You are presuming again what a "strict voter ID" law is. I can tell you for a fact that thousands upon thousands of Minnesota voters use a NON-current photo ID in every election. It is the principal reason given for same-day registration. In addition to a proper photo ID (one of the big faults of the MN system is the number of different forms accepted) AND a proof of address. Make the Photo ID requirement more "strict," allow people a free state ID, and you have none of the problems you describe, while reducing substantially the chance of fraud.

John said...

Yes, MN is on the lax side... I prefer SD's methods.

jerrye92002 said...

So there are election reforms that reduce fraud, or the opportunity for it, that do NOT "suppress legal voting" in your opinion?

John said...

I recommended a big one. A national database of all people in the USA that tracks where they live, if they are alive or dead, if they are allowed to vote, etc. That should take care of duplicate registrations and people being registered to vote after they are dead.

Also, please remember that I am fine with the SD method. It is going to have to be a pretty serious and convincing fraudulent voter who would risk jumping through those hoops.

jerrye92002 said...

Your "big one," however, and even the State-by-State registration systems we have now, ARE subject to hacking and intrusion. A better approach is what we should be doing now, which is importing Social Security death records, federal immigration status and USPS change-of-address into the State systems (without direct connection), updating with local felony records. In short, actually DOING the "9-point check" the SOS says he is doing, using best available data.

This concern for hacking actually prevents me from offering what I think would be the greatest improvement, which would be a "strict" voter ID law coupled with "instant registration." That is, you walk into the polling place, swipe your license or ID card, it quickly checks with the central database, finds out if you are in the correct precinct or if you have moved (and the database hasn't caught up, whereby you provide proof of a new address and you are instantly allowed to vote-- no provisional ballot needed) as well as all other eligibility checks. The alternative to this, or to "strict voter ID" is provisional ballots for same-day registrants, which means the results of the election would not be known for months.

Could you provide a link to the SD system, please? I find it hard to believe we would agree on something. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

It's called "electronic poll books," by the way.

John said...

SD SOS Voter ID

jerrye92002 said...

That's very good. As I read it, you must register AND be verified before the election-- there is no same-day registration as we know it here. You MUST have a valid photo ID, not any of a number of maybe-IDs as we allow here, and if you forgot it, you file a legal affidavit to the fact. That enhances the penalty and bother so, you are correct, that is a major "hoop." And I point out that we only turned away one guy for that last November. And if you do not appear on the registration rolls at all, possibly due to a mistake, you fill out a registration from and get a "provisional ballot," only counted after your registration information is checked. The cite said something like 500 such were taken across the whole state, and only about 20% proved valid and were counted. That much checking could be done in a couple days and would be unlikely to change the outcome of an election.

I like it. So what are the chances we could do that in MN without apoplectic fits from the DFL about "voter suppression"?

John said...

Actually the DFL was pushing Electronic Poll Books and the GOP was resisting for something more...

I do agree that both sides seem to be playing that "manipulate the vote" game.

jerrye92002 said...

I suspect the notion of electronic poll books (most Republicans I know like the idea, except for the security issue) was NOT coupled with a strong Voter ID.

And please don't start that "both sides" thing again. One side is right and the other side is wrong, but on multi-faceted issues like this compromise is possible, assuming that the "best" solution is picked on every facet. For example, if the DFL wants electronic phone books, the security issue must be guaranteed, and they cannot be implemented without the front-end registration verification and the back-end voter ID issues covered.

BTW, I know Republicans are working on "election integrity" issues this session. Maybe we could get together and offer some ideas.

John said...

If I thought there was a real issue I may be interested, but I don't... :-)

jerrye92002 said...

What do you call 17,000 potentially fraudulent votes cast in the previous election, if not a problem worth fixing? How about 600,000 potentially fraudulent votes cast in the most recent election?

John said...

Sources...

jerrye92002 said...

MN SOS

John said...

Not even close.

CAE Voter Fraud
MP Fair

jerrye92002 said...

Really, you could not find on the DFL's hyperpartisan SOS website that 17,000 same-day voters in the 2012 were marked as "challenged" on the voter rolls? You cannot find that 600,000 same-day registrations were taken in 2016? No /wonder/ there is no "evidence of fraud"! Even where it exists, Democrats go out of their way to hide it, even as they encourage it in practice.

John said...

Or maybe you are dreaming these things up in your sleep. :-)

Or at least the idea that they are conclusive evidence of people voting who are not supposed to be...

jerrye92002 said...

Not really. The numbers are available and if not openly, they should be.

And the whole point here is that they are conclusive evidence that we do not know how much fraudulent voting goes on. We have anecdotal evidence aplenty, like the machines in Detroit that cast more votes than there were voters, or the hundreds of people even in SD's tough system that were rejected on examination, though at least the examination took place before the votes were counted. In MN, we don't do that. We should.