Voting

Trump Says Millions Voted Illegally but Any Recount Would Be Pointless

The president-elect claims he would have won the popular vote if Clinton had not benefited from widespread fraud.

|

JZS

Any hope that the prospect of occupying the White House would dampen Donald Trump's fondness for conspiracist crap seems to have been misplaced. Likewise the hope that he would prove gracious in victory. After a brief burst of magnanimity on election night, he has reverted to form. "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide," he bragged on Twitter yesterday, "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."

Trump says any recount of votes in the presidential election is "a scam," since it will not affect the outcome. Yet he also claims "millions of people" voted illegally. Can both propositions be true? Only if you assume, as Trump apparently does, that millions of illegal voters 1) exist and 2) favor Hillary Clinton.

A couple of weeks ago, Politifact found no evidence to back up reports by websites such as InfoWars, Milo, The New American, and Freedom Daily that more than 3 million votes were cast by noncitizens in this month's election. The source of that claim, Republican activist Gregg Phillips, said it was based on an "analysis of [a] database of 180 million voter registrations," but he declined to say where the information came from or how he had analyzed it.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, told Politifact "the idea that 3 million noncitizens could have illegally voted in our elections without being detected is obscenely ludicrous." Here is what Hasen told Politico about Trump's claim that "millions of people" voted illegally:

There's no reason to believe this is true. The level of fraud in US elections is quite low….We're talking claims in the dozens. We're not talking voting in the millions, or the thousands, or even the hundreds.

Politifact's Allison Graves noted that claims about widespread voting by noncitizens got a boost from a 2014 study estimating that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent voted in 2010. But the survey data on which that study was based were flawed because some respondents accidentally gave the wrong answer to a question about their citizenship. Three researchers who reinterviewed participants in the survey found that a small percentage changed their answers to that question. "It appears as though about 0.1-0.3 percent of respondents are citizens who incorrectly identify themselves as non-citizens in the survey," they explained in The Washington Post last month. "With a sample size of 19,000, even this low rate of error can result in a number of responses that appear notable when they are not."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

241 responses to “Trump Says Millions Voted Illegally but Any Recount Would Be Pointless

  1. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Especially when the entire point of the exercise is that it go off undetected.

    1. It could be true… so it is!

      1. Your faith in the integrity of people seeking power is much, much greater than my own.

        1. So, are you asserting that Trump won the popular vote if fraudulent votes are discounted? If so, what evidence do you base that assertion on?

          1. No. I am simply flabbergasted that people are so dismissive of the idea that voter fraud doesn’t exist.

            I mean, politicians will lie, send troops to their deaths, order bombing raids on villages, embezzle billions of dollars, abuse interns…but voter fraud is a step too far?

            1. er, that voter fraud exists. If only an edit button existed.

              1. At least the voting machines autocorrect.

            2. Voter fraud does exist. That is different from claiming that Hillary Clinton received more than 2.2 million votes that were fraudulent, which is what Trump did and the article is about.

              1. I wasn’t addressing the article specifically. However, scale of 1-10, 10 being “Trump’s assertion is true”, I’m at about a 7.

                1. I’m only about at about a 2.5. But still, thinking that it’s completely impossible seems rather naive to me. There are millions of illegals here. And no shortness of wink-wink-nudge-nudge on the D side of things to allow them to vote. And asking anybody to show an ID, for this one thing, is apparently the same as being Hitler.

              2. Hillary could very well have received 2 million fraudulent votes. A recount will not detect that. For that you need to go over the voter rolls.

                Doesn’t any one understand this stuff?

    2. Exactly. We don’t need evidence to tell us there’s a problem that requires a swift and decisive solution.

    3. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      I prefer the simpler explanation: California is an echo chamber so big that it is frequently mistaken for a state.

    4. A lack of evidence is pretty damning to assertions of facts.

      1. A lack of evidence is pretty damning to assertions of facts.

        That knife cuts both ways.

        A lack of evidence only says something definitive if a serious* attempt was made to gather evidence in the first place.

        * = Yes, this is a weasel word. What it means in practice varies from case to case.

      2. Yeah. I have no problem believing that if, nationwide, people went through the voter roles, they’d find hundreds, maybe even a couple thousand fraudulent votes. But that’s not many, and certainly nowhere near what Trump is trying to claim sans evidence.

        1. Thanks for your definitive speculation sans evidence. You failed to factor in that Demoncrats have been in the voter fraud game for a long time. If it were so minuscule and inconsequential then Demoncrats would not expend so much energy at thwarting efforts to address it.

  2. Only if you assume, as Trump apparently does, that millions of illegal voters 1) exist and 2) favor Hillary Clinton.

    Please explain why either of these assumptions would be off base? I doubt that anyone believes there were no illegal voters, nor would that person presume that those folks would vote Repub. You don’t have to a Trumpkin to notice this.

    1. Do you really need the difference between “more than zero illegal voters” and “millions of illegal voters” explained to you?

      Also, you are conflating “illegal voter” with “illegal immigrant”. An illegal voter could be any number of things — it could be an illegal immigrant, or it could be an entirely made-up person, a criminal who has lost the right to vote, a legal voter who voted more than once, etc.

  3. If you’re going to use the stupid “Trump Baby” image, could you at least get someone to photoshop it a bit better?

    1. I kinda like how shitty it looks. It’s fitting.

      1. At least remove the background baby ears, that’d take like two minutes.

        1. That pink baby shirt is now available from the Ivanka Trump Fine Infant Wear Collection.

            1. I took it as intentionally shitty.

            2. I took it as intentionally shitty.

  4. the idea that 3 million noncitizens could have illegally voted in our elections without being detected is obscenely ludicrous

    The tweet did not say “non-citizens” did it?

    There’s no reason to believe this is true. The level of fraud in US elections is quite low….We’re talking claims in the dozens. We’re not talking voting in the millions, or the thousands, or even the hundreds.

    Of course. Chicago doesn’t exist.

    Sheesh, Jakey, you can do better than this.

    1. Exactly. I want to know why in a nation where phrases like “vote early, vote often” are based on some reality, along with stories of votes cast by dead people, that the idea of illegals voting is ludicrous at all, let alone obscenely so.

      1. So you’re saying you have no evidence, only a narrative.

        1. There is plenty of evidence, but it is almost instantly dismissed by the mainstream media as conspiracy bunk. This cycle there have been numerous reports of fraud that quickly get washed down the hole. Just spend some time googling FFS. Local poll worker in one of the notorious 100% Dem districts went public with claims that she saw people filling out stacks of absentee ballots. Was quickly hushed up.

          Democrats fight every effort to purge voter roles and/or require identification/proof of citizenship to vote. The Dem’s hard line on this is really all the evidence we need that there is something there. Voter ID would not be the hot button issue it is unless there was illegal vote making going on.

          Pennsylvania’s legislature passed a law requiring ID prior to the last election. Federal judge struck it down as an undue burden even though PA was going to provide free ID’s to anyone without a driver’s license. It boggles the mind. The voter ID effort is an attempt by the Republican controlled state legislature to get the rampant Philly voter corruption under control. Remember the Black Panther guards with clubs outside polling places last cycle? They were guarding the ballot stuffing. Everyone knows it.

          1. JFK – Chicago 1960.

            For those of you alive to hear (radio WGN) that little exercise in lost and found ballots.

      2. I heard that 100 years ago, the number of people pulled over for speeding was practically zero. Obviously the police nowadays are intentionally miscalibrating their radar guns to generate more revenue!

        1. An inapt analogy makes for a poor refutation.

  5. Okay, let’s not pretend that voter fraud doesn’t exist. That’s ludicrous. Have you ever dealt with the political partisans that run elections at the local level? They all think they’re on a mission from God.

    But to think that all illegally cast votes went to Clinton is quite a stretch. I’m sure Stein got a few.

  6. I think millions of illegal aliens who have formal documentation and government issued IDs in California voting is more likely than Russia directly hacking voting booths, which is what the Dems are peddling right now. Both are insane.

    It’s like when the Dems complain about Birthers while defending the 25%+ of them that are 9/11 Truthers. They’re both crazy, but which is more insane to believe: a mother forging a piece of paper to give her son US citizenship, or a multi-national plot involving hundreds of people (at a minimum) to deliberately demolish buildings, killing thousands of Americans citizens and wrecking the economy, just to start a war with the not-so-bad dictator who was mean to Bush’s daddy?

    1. well, when you put it like that…

  7. I liked Simon better.

  8. If elections aren’t going to be final and we have to still hear about them even after they are over, then why are we even having them at all?

    Although the anti-Stein/recount tweets and the “millions of illegal voters” tweet are not as intertwined as a lot of people want to make them out to be. The latter is more of a counter-punch to the people saying “But Hillary won the popular vote!!!1!” than a refutation of the Stein recount effort.

    In reality, Stein, Hillary and Trump are all crybabies. It would be nice if the actual President-Elect would be the grown-up, but then when has he ever been one, so why start now?

      1. Only after winning the Superbowl.

        1. …or losing the starting QB job to a rook.

          1. This requires one to assume that T. Romo was a strong man in the first place.

            1. Geets Romo was incredibly strong and smart. He knew how to talk hip. And taught it.

      2. Fuckin’ A.

  9. The ludicrous claim isn’t that illegal voting might have taken place, it’s that millions of illegal votes are the reason Trump lost the popular vote by an historic margin.

    In any case, Trump is either deranged enough to think this is true or this is a ploy to divide and conquer the media. I’ll lean towards the latter.

    1. I still don’t know if Trump is deliberately trolling the media and is actually a pretty smart guy, or if he’s the dumbest person on the planet. I can’t read him, and hear different things from different people who have personally dealt with him. I keep on going back and forth between the two options.

      1. Well, he’s a fucking vaxxer , so I’m gonna go with dumb.

      2. Why waffle between the two when they could both be true simultaneously? He could very well be some sort of idiot savant, or be a bit bipolar. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that he has some good gut instincts (he did well in business, seems to surround himself with fairly competent people, and can behave when it counts – his victory speech and second and third debate performances) but he is not an intellectual person and has no filter, so every foolish thought that flits across his brain also pours forth from his mouth.

        1. Trump is polar? Cool.

    2. The fact is that had California voted like every other Democratic state, Trump would have won the popular vote. Hillary won the popular vote because she had an enormous vote advantage in California.

      Maybe that is due to California being just that far out of line with every other state. Stranger things have happened. It is, however, fair to question if some or all of that difference is due to the fact that California has a huge illegal population and no voter ID laws or anything else that would keep illegals from voting there.

      Do we know that is what happened? No. But I don’t think it is an unreasonable possibility.

      1. Because of the new voting system in the primaries, there were no Republicans on the ballot for any statewide office. Republicans, who already have little reason to vote in California, had absolutely zero reason to go to the polls this election to choose between two Democrats.

        1. ^Me to a tee

        2. In California, you are asked if you want to register to vote when you get a driver’s license. And we give drivers licenses to illegal aliens in this state. Not sure how good they are of not allowing the illegal aliens driver’s license people to vote, but I would bet there’s a lot that somehow get registered.

      2. Someone would have to compile convincing evidence for me to start to think it was mainly fraud. A simpler explanation is simply high turnout in CA due to a Senate contest, marijuana legalization on the ballot and Trump pissing off Hispanic voters.

        1. The Senate contest was between two Democrats. Why would that drive turnout? It was basically a primary. And even if it or something else did, that doesn’t explain it. Other Democratic states had big turnouts as well. Yet, they didn’t go as overwhelmingly for Hillary as California. So the question remains, why is California so out of line with other Democratic states?

          You say there was no evidence it was an illegal vote. We don’t know. There is no evidence it was anything else either. You just dismiss the possibility because you don’t want it to be true for whatever reason.

          1. Actually, California was not an anomaly when compared to the other big lefty states. CA went 62D/32R, NY went 58D/37R, and IL went 55D/39R. And Californians are probably more out-and-out left than the other big D states, so a more ideologically appropriate comparison with the hard-left states of Maryland (60D/34R) and Massachusetts (61D/34R) aptly reveals that CA was not really out of line. The reason Clinton carried the popular vote was that the big R states were closer: Texas went 52R/43D, FL went 49R/47D, and PA went 48R/47D. She won big in all the wrong places.

            1. A few percentage points in California is a lot of votes, though. The split in CA for 2012 was 60/37. The split went from D+23 to D+30 which gives a swing of D+7. There were 13.2 million ballots cast in 2012 and 13.7 million cast in 2016. Relative to the votes cast in 2012, the Democrats “gained” about 800,000 votes from California alone.

              Whether that’s due to fraud, or different turnout rates by party, or some other factors entirely would require more data than is easily available to assess.

              1. Minor correction: the Dems “gained” over 910,000 votes vs. the Republicans from 2012 to 2016 in California, according to the numbers on Wikipedia.

          2. Because, other than president, the only statewide races were (1) a Senate election between two Democrats, and (2) a bunch of referenda that were almost entirely Democrat hobbyhorse proposals. In other states, there were Governor’s races, or other statewide races, or Senate races that actually had a Republican on the ballot, or even some chance of affecting the balance of power in the state legislature (NY and CT for instance). None of those things were factors in California this year. There aren’t that many California Republicans in the first place, but among those few, there was very little reason for them to even show up to vote, or to vote for any of the presidential choices.

        2. Apparently looking for evidence is stupid though, unless you already have the evidence you’re looking for.

          1. ^^^THIS^^^

      3. Do we know that is what happened? No. But I don’t think it is an unreasonable possibility.

        This is the same argument you put forth while discussing the pizza-pedo Podesta. It could be true, therefore it is true.

        1. Yes it is. And it is no less valid here. “reasonable possibility” doesn’t mean “certainty”. Again, just because you don’t want something to be true, down’t mean it can’t be true.

          1. just because you don’t want something to be true, down’t mean it can’t be true.

            I am aware.

        2. “…the pizza-pedo Podesta. It could be true, therefore it is true.”

          You have seen a photo of pedo Podesta haven’t you? You still have questions. I can’t define what a pedo is but I know one when I see him.

      4. “Do we know that is what happened? No. But I don’t think it is an unreasonable possibility.”

        Haha… John… you are outstanding, you wonderful hack. Never change!

        1. Fuck off, asswipe.

  10. Donald Trump’s fondness for conspiracist crap

    Conservatives call it “news”.

    1. Now sign this change.org petition that will make Hillary president! Faithless electors! Just sign and it will happen!

    2. The Washington Post and other news outlets have given space to discussing baseless conspiracy theories about the Russians hacking voting booths.

    3. Palin’s Buttplug|11.28.16 @ 11:30AM|#
      “Conservatives call it “news”.”

      What do you call a loser? “Turd”.

  11. I think you are misunderstanding what Trump is messaging, here.

    I think what he is doing is warning the Dems that any recount won’t be the usual mining for more Dem votes in the trunks of people’s cars or in “forgotten” boxes of ballots.

    It will (also) be an investigation into the legitimacy of the votes that have been and/or will be counted. And, it could well involve demanding recounts in states that Hillary barely won, as well.

    Our voter and ballot security is a joke. Every audit of voter rolls turns up dead voters, double-registered voters, noncitizen voters, etc. – people who should not cast a ballot. Even the dismissal of the noncitizen voter study only really reduces the number of immigrant voters by a very small percentage – from 6.4% in 2008 to 6.1% in 2008. That layer of security has failed, leaving a tranche of potential votes to be manufactured.

    We have a system that is vulnerable to fraud, and with high stakes, its naive to assume that fraud doesn’t happen.

    How much? Who knows.

    1. What evidence is there that voting fraud is widespread and pervasive enough to affect the outcome of elections at any level of the ballot?

      1. Exactly.

        It’s not difficult to imagine a few illegal votes here and there. It’s difficult to imagine millions upon millions of illegal votes that change the outcome of entire states.

        1. Not all elections are national. Many local elections and initiatives can come down to a thousand (or fewer) votes. And depending on where you live, the real stakes come down to the crazies in your local office- regardless of who’s sitting in the white house.

      2. If you don’t look for it, how will you find it?

      3. What evidence do you have that it isn’t? We know it is very easy to do in many states. Why do you automatically assume that it can’t be happening? The lack of security creates the possibility that it is. I don’t see how you are justified in just assuming it can’t happen and placing the burden on anyone who says otherwise it did. The burden is really on you. You are the one claiming that we don’t need ballot security. Okay, if that is true, show me evidence that fraud isn’t and can’t occur.

        1. What evidence do the commenters have the John does not beat his wife?

          1. The same evidence that you don’t provide handjobs for crack.

          2. Conclusively prove that I am not in fact a Unicorn with articulated hooves.

            Should that be an Unicorn? that sounds wrong somehow.

            Discuss below.

            1. Conclusively prove that I am not in fact a Unicorn with articulated hooves.

              We know unicorns don’t exist. They have never been seen before. We know that vote fraud does exist. The question is, is it happening here.

              What you are doing here is begging the question and just assuming that fraud is like a unicorn and can’t exist. That would be forgivable except that you are utterly smug while completely wrong and misunderstanding logic and deductive reasoning.

              1. You’re missing the point of burden of proof.

                Believe it or not claiming substantive organized wide spread voter fraud is actually an rather major claim. You don’t get to claim it then go “prove to me that it doesn’t happen.”

                You have to actually come with proof. Else you’re just every other conspiracy whacko.

                So let’s have it.

                1. How do you propose one produces evidence of a thing that is designed to go undetected? But Scott Foval’s admission is a point in its favor. Democrat opposition to voter ID laws is a point in its favor.

                  1. Many things are designed to go undetected yet go detected. That a thing is hard to prove does not shift the burden of proof.

                    How do you propose we disprove widespread voter fraud? especially when lack of evidence for it is seen as evidence for it by select people?

                    1. Perhaps what we need to do is ask, simply as a matter of form, that one produce valid picture ID to vote. It’s only a whim, but it won’t hurt anything and it will shut up some of the crazies. Pretty nice idea since most people already carry picture ID for more important tasks like buying alcohol, cough syrup or cigarettes.

                      What, you say? It will prevent thousands of millions of minorities from voting and cause repression across the land? Prove it?

                      I think unless there is clear evidence that the requirement for ID keeps thousands of millions of legal citizens from buying alcohol or cough syrup, the argument of undue hardship upon minorities is a bit of a stretch here. But prove to me that legal citizens of age often don’t get to drink because they’re afraid of carrying a driver’s license or state ID and we can talk.

          3. If I had both the motivation to beat my wife and the opportunity to do so, it might be a good idea for me to produce evidence I haven’t. We have reason to believe people do commit fraud. They have both the motivation and the opportunity. Moreover, we can’t just assume that it isn’t going on.

            You don’t know me from Job. Why do you automatically assume I don’t beat my wife? Do you think people don’t do that?

            1. “You don’t know me from Job. Why do you automatically assume I don’t beat my wife?

              I do not assume that. That is why I will need your official condemnation of wife beating in addition to your definitive denial of such to allay my concerns.

      4. It is quite possible that effective fraud/manipulation exists on the state level, but is generally drowned out by the electoral college or canceled out by other states. All the more reason not to rely on the national popular vote for anything. One state could pad its rolls, fail to enforce “one person, one vote”, or use various legal/procedural methods (such as California’s new “primary” system) to affect outcomes. Limiting the power of one state to determine the outcome is exactly why the EC exists and should remain.

    2. That noncitizen voter study is really just an extrapolation of survey results. Has there been an actual *study* that measured the illegal voting rate in some way?

      “How much? Who knows.”

      Trump and the fever-brained conspiratorial right are convinced that fraud is massive, without any evidence more substantial than vague anecdotes.

      1. Wait, Who wants a recount? oh the Leftoids, Not Trump

        1. Why would the winner want a recount? And who is talking about a recount, anyway?

          Trump is stating (with no evidence whatsoever) that there is massive voter fraud against him. He’s not asking for a recount, he’s saying “I should have won by even more”, most likely because his massive ego won’t let him just be the winner of the EC. Does it not bother you that the president-elect would take part in such an activity?

          1. Why would the winner want a recount?

            Presuming it is meant seriously, to quell claims that he “lost” the popular vote.

            But taking it seriously is to fail to understand Trump. He’s just calling the opposition’s bluff.

            Does it not bother you that the president-elect would take part in such an activity?

            … I see no objectionable activity yet happening, only lots of bluster and misreading.

          2. “Does it not bother you that the president-elect would take part in such an activity?”

            Not even a little.

          3. Well, except the evidence of Democrat operatives saying so on film.

            Except that evidence.

            Or would that be a confession?

        2. A recount will not detect voter fraud. That happens before voting.

          1. That’s why we need UN observers.

    3. You should apply to the Trump Administration for the Secretary of Tweets job. Take his semi-coherent thoughts and post them in a way that make sense.

      I bet the hours will suck.

    4. Even the dismissal of the noncitizen voter study only really reduces the number of immigrant voters by a very small percentage – from 6.4% in 2008 to 6.1% in 2008.

      1. You apparently don’t understand math.
      2. You also apparently think immigrants shouldn’t vote.

      1. a 2014 study estimating that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent voted in 2010.

        It appears as though about 0.1-0.3 percent of respondents are citizens who incorrectly identify themselves as non-citizens in the survey

        You are correct – the .03 percent is of total respondents, not respondents who identified themselves as non-citizens. Not sure how much that would reduce the actual percentage of non-citizens in this case, but it would be more than 0.3%. Leaving a number, I might note, larger than zero.

        You also apparently think immigrants shouldn’t vote.

        I believe non-citizens shouldn’t vote – that last reference to “immigrants” was, shall we say, imprecise.

      2. 2. You also apparently think immigrants shouldn’t vote.

        Um, if immigrants aren’t naturalized citizens it’s ILLEGAL for them to be voting, you dumbshit.

  12. Are there illegal votes? Sure. Millions of them? That seems like a stretch. If there is actual data on the subject, not just vague correlations or anecdotes, that would be good to have.

    And if it is actually true, why wouldn’t Trump want a recount in order to uncover all of that supposed massive fraud, if for no other reason that it would be a great way for him to locate all of those illegals so he can deport them?

    1. “And if it is actually true, why wouldn’t Trump want a recount in order to uncover all of that supposed massive fraud”

      Because a recount won’t uncover that supposed massive fraud, if it exists. It will recount the votes cast, without looking at how the votes came to be cast.

  13. Going with Politifact are we now?

    1. I was just thinking the same. Quoting politifact and politico doesnt mean what Sullum thinks it means.

      1. It depends. If Politifact calls a republican point true, or a democrat point false, they are probably telling the truth. Otherwise, I seek other sources.

  14. The only reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is because it’s racist. The only reason.

    1. I oppose ID for conceal carry for the same reasons.

    2. the blacks are just too stupid to know where there dmv is!! why are you such a horrible racist, playa?

      1. Even the “know where the DMV is/be able to get to the DMV” bit is a red herring.

        A lot of states have a free/inexpensive, at-your-door ID service nowadays. If you are absolutely unable to get to the DMV, then the DMV will come to you. Of course, the number of people who fall into this category is vanishingly small, especially when amortized over the approx. 520 working days that pass between national elections.

  15. The election is over, isn’t it?

    1. See a doctor if you have an election that lasts for over four years.

        1. *narrows gaze*

  16. Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

  17. Of course there’s fraud. If it was found that the Parti Quebecois engaged in fraud through rejected ballots in the 1995 referendum, I think it’s safe to assume in a country the size of the USA has some hanky-panky going on. I blame global cum warming.

    http://bit.ly/2gP0CJT

  18. I blame global cum warming.

    *blinks*

  19. Everyone just needs to settle in four years of this sort of thing. I recommend not paying attention to anything Donald Trump says unless it is likely to be an indicator of future policy decisions, and even then taking it with a grain of salt. Pay attention to what actually happens, I guess. Or just rediscover some hobby. I’ve taken this opportunity to get back into college football in a big way (helps that Penn State is resurgent) and I’m looking forward to focusing more on hockey once it starts up, too. I’m also going to start lacto-fermenting various vegetables, and I’ve got a nephew due any day now. Got some vacations planned and I’m likely going to get gold status with Delta this year. 2017 should be pretty good.

    1. Exactly. I wish Trump would shut the hell up, but he won’t, so the least we could do is not report and discuss every inane statement of his as if it is newsworthy.

      He’s a brash idiot who will say whatever dumb, self-serving idea comes to mind. Let’s talk more about Castro, or how the marijuana initiatives are progressing, or about Rico’s hair.

      1. The problem with the “ignore him, we know he’s brash and idiotic” is that the brash idiot is president, which means his vocal spasms are the vocal spasms of the head of the executive branch of our government. A branch which has become increasingly powerful since the great depression.

        1. The same was no less true under Obama and Bush. Then there was Clinton (who served as the public face for his wife). Before that…

          It’s been pretty much booger eating morons all the way down.

          When do you suppose it’ll be time for the people to realize they need to find a way to take back the power stolen by both the Congress and the Executive? After all, that would do more than reigning in any single low life politician.

    1. Students were instructed to ‘run, hide and fight’ in a tweet posted by the school’s office of emergency management just before 10am.

      ‘Run, hide, fight’ is standard protocol for active shooter situations. It means: Run, evacuate if possible; Hide, get silently out of view; or Fight, as a last resort, take action to disrupt or incapacitate the shooter if your life is in imminent danger.

      Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted Monday morning that his thoughts and prayers are with the college’s community

      I laugh every time.

      1. Should have checked the comments.

        Yeah, “Shelter in place” and “Run Hide Fight”.

        1. Another:

          Philip Zivnuska, Wichita, United States, 3 minutes ago
          I sure hope there will be lot of politicians who send thoughts and prayers.

        2. What order are you supposed to do those things?

          1. In the order provided. Find shelter, then run around inside, occasionally hiding and fighting the other people in there. I guess.

      2. run, hide and fight

        Who knew Ohio State’s active shooter protocol was the same as Jim Harbaugh’s playbook?

        1. *Gives LynchPin1477 a buckeye*

    2. I’m sure this means all final exams will be cancelled. Where does this fall on the coloring book and puppies scale?

  20. Republicans, who already have little reason to vote in California, had absolutely zero reason to go to the polls this election to choose between two Democrats.

    I agree.

    I suspect there were a lot of Republicans in California who just couldn’t be bothered, absent some specific local issue.

    1. The total national vote for House elections, which is arguably closer to what an actual pure democratic election would look like for president, is currently 61.5 million for Republicans to 58.3 million for Democrats. We have absolutely no idea what an actual popular vote election would have produced. Campaigns and turnout would have been completely different.It could have given Hillary the election, or it could have given Trump a 3 million vote lead.

  21. actual news:

    BREAKING NEWS: Suspect dead and nine injured in active shooter situation at Ohio State University

    Michigan fan?

    1. If it were referees being shot at, maybe.

    2. If so that’s the second time in as many days officials have intervened on behalf of OSU.

    3. Are there other shooters? Because when the suspect is dead they tend to become pretty inactive.

  22. Breaking: Active shooter on Ohio State University.

    Confusing tweet sent out by “autorities”: Shelter in place and “Run Hide Fight”.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/na…..on-campus/

  23. Trump’s agenda is simply to provide a pretext for rounding up and holding millions of people indefinitely in Sheriff Joe’s open air prison camps. “They are drug dealers, rapists, murderers, and.. and.. and… voting felons!”

    1. Sounds good, when does he start?

    2. Holding them indefinitely is expensive, legally questionable, and just plain stupid. Deportations can happen quickly if the administration wants them to, even mass deportations.

      1. Not without a wall, dumbass.

        1. Oh, really? Where was the wall in the 1950s when the Eisenhower administration carried out Operation Wetback?

          Of course, most of those deported came back years later. That’s a different problem, dumbass.

          1. The wall just got 10 feet higher, jerkwad.

  24. How much fraud? I certainly do not know, but not one of the REGISTER REGISTER REGISTER VOTE VOTE VOTE psas I heard made any mention whatsoever of “qualifications”.

    “Make your voice heard!” not same as, “Are you a citizen?”

  25. I think Trump’s claims are probably completely made-up

    that said, I don’t necessarily believe anything !*()#$)@ Politifact says either.

    claims about widespread voting by noncitizens got a boost from a 2014 study estimating that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent voted in 2010. But the survey data on which that study was based were flawed because some respondents accidentally gave the wrong answer to a question about their citizenship.

    Even with the “0.1-0.3” percent flawed results, assuming “low-mid single digit %” voting among non-citizens is still a not-insignificant number, far higher than what “expert” Rick Hansen suggested.

    1. And completely unacceptable in 2016.

  26. Anyone catch Killing Kennedy last night? Notice how the assassin was (1) ex-military, (2) married with child at young age, and (3) taunted by the FBI. All that was missing was a selfie with his weapons and jihadi magazines. Oh… wait…

  27. Anyone who thinks that Trump thinks that the Clintons have suffered enough, or that he won’t immediately round up and imprison 2-3 million illegals, or that he won’t seek Putin’s blessing to surprise-nuke north africa is delusional.

    1. delusional

      Just because you are standing in a glass house and holding a box of rocks doesn’t mean you should start throwing.

      1. Why not? Go ahead and get your rocks off, kb. You can do it.

            1. It’s all projection with you, isn’t it? “Getting your rocks off” is exactly what you’re doing. Can’t you masturbate by yourself like a normal person?

              1. I would LOVE to see that dossier. Seriously, you can post it if you must. I mean, if that’s what you’re into.

                1. Please, continue with your incoherent blathering. I know you can:

                  1. Yet your obsession with a ‘paranoid schizophrenic’ and ‘autistic’ and and ‘drug addict’ and who know what else has got to count for something.

                    1. I never called you any of those things. But your persecution complex shall continue unabated.

  28. No mention of Obama encouraging illegal aliens to vote, days before the election?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgEvgVC6Qs

  29. Why is Trump being skewered for the recount nonsense?

    1. because narratives die hard

    2. he said he might not accept the results!

  30. Clinton is formally pursuing a recount which no one really believes has a chance of leading to her election success.

    Clinton voters are rioting and destroying property nationwide, not to mention moral-panicing over some imagined hate crime wave based on an incidence rate of roughly 1 in 100 million people experiencing some kind of rude interaction.

    And Trump tweeted some pretty standard Republican fare about illegals voting.

    Let’s go with the Trump crybaby picture.

    1. yeah, you do really have to ignore pretty much everything going on to pretend that Trump is somehow the spoil-sport here.

    2. What he/she said.
      Once again, a tweet causes progs and cosmos to shit their pants, while actual actions by the left to change the election results are no biggie

    3. I was going to mention this because it’s completely asinine, but it takes a while to read through all of the comments.

  31. and what, exactly, is the more-retarded behavior here?

    Trump suggesting that non-citizens vote illegally?

    Or Hillary et al contesting the fucking election…. ? just a month after dozens pearl-clutching editorials fearing that Trump’s ambivalence about accepting election-results would “undermine democracy“?

    1. “Because Democrats are stupid too!!!” is not an argument in favor of Trump’s stupidity.

      1. Trump made a tweet. The left is actively doing things to change the result of the election.
        At what point did we become such a nation of pussies that words upset people more than actions?

      2. “Because Democrats are stupid too!!!” is not an argument in favor of Trump’s stupidity.

        I said what the left has been doing post-election is 100X more ridiculous than whatever Trump has tweeted lately. Not that one exculpates the other.

        There’s no equivalence at all.

    2. This is how evil and awful Hillary Clinton is: her and her supporters’ behavior since the election has actually made me feel relieved that Trump won the Presidency. And I can’t stand Trump.

  32. Trump is what happens when you put all your SPECIAL points in Charisma and Luck.

    1. I don’t know, he appears to have quite a few Constitution points on Hillary as well.

    2. Yeah, I don’t get the charisma.

      Perception, Endurance and Luck.

      He doesn’t have brains, and he doesn’t really have charm, but he makes the same dumb point over and over in a way that actually was “what people wanted to hear”.

      That strikes me as ‘perception’ and the fortitude to stick with the point even when everyone (including the entire mass-media and his own party) was shitting all over him.

    3. Perception, Intelligence, and Endurance

  33. Why is Trump being skewered for the recount nonsense?

    If he hadn’t rigged the goddam election, no recount would be necessary.

  34. Sorta like the argument about the passing game in football, Stein’s got three possible outcomes here and two of them are bad.
    Personally, I hope they find voter fraud or hacking. By the Ds.

    1. They won’t find anything attributable to the Dems. If there was that potential, they wouldn’t do it. Stein is being funneled money to demand a recount for the sole purpose of disrupting the elector vote. She waited until the last possible minute to request the recount. If those states do not finish in time, they can’t send their electors, and Trump doesn’t hit 270 on Dec 19th. Election goes to the House and at best we’ll have 4 years of “illegitimate president” and sponsored protests every week. At worst, we get some other issue that creates further issues and chaos.

      This is twisted banana republic stuff and the Dems are playing with fire.

    2. They won’t find anything attributable to the Dems. If there was that potential, they wouldn’t do it. Stein is being funneled money to demand a recount for the sole purpose of disrupting the elector vote. She waited until the last possible minute to request the recount. If those states do not finish in time, they can’t send their electors, and Trump doesn’t hit 270 on Dec 19th. Election goes to the House and at best we’ll have 4 years of “illegitimate president” and sponsored protests every week. At worst, we get some other issue that creates further issues and chaos.

      This is twisted banana republic stuff and the Dems are playing with fire.

      1. “the Dems are playing with fire”

        With people who have firearms.

    3. Stein’s got three possible outcomes

      This isn’t Stein’s doing. Think about it: Stein got more money for the recount than for her entire campaign. Stein is a paid lackey of the Democrats: they want a recount without looking even more stupid and anti-democratic than they already do.

      I’m just hoping that this will also come out in a leak.

  35. The Dems aren’t seriously trying to change the result and install Herself in office.

    The recount thing is just more of their campaign to delegitimize the winner of the election, as they did with Bush after he beat Gore. As a bonus, SCOTUS may have to step in (again) to shut down the pointless recounts, allowing the Dems to delegitimize SCOTUS in advance of one, two, or more “conservative” justices cementing a “conservative” majority.

  36. C’mon guys, you’ve fallen victim to his hyperbole again. Let’s be explicit:

    1) “we need a recount because we might not be able to rely on our election procedures”
    2) “your recount is useless, since our election procedures are unreliable and biased against *my* side”

    What’s the response? “No, our elections procedures are reliable!” Then why a recount?

    This is like “when did you stop beating your wife?” It’s a trick, a dodge, a reframing. Clever, effective, but a silly trap to walk into.

    Of course, this was a trap set and laid by the Ds, who insisted that anyone who contested the result was a direct threat to our democracy…:)

  37. I think Trump’s claim of “millions” of illegal votes is likely a gross exaggeration, but it is amusing to see it provoke the “crazy conspiracy theory” response from people who seem to sincerely believe that the Russian government is controlling our news media and manipulating our elections.

    1. I think Trump’s claim of “millions” of illegal votes is likely a gross exaggeration,

      I used to think so, but I’m not so sure anymore.

      Media targeted at immigrants and Hispanics don’t seem to dwell on the fine points of citizenship when they encourage people to vote, and many illegal immigrants seem to view themselves as “Americans”. And even Obama was signaling that there is little enforcement possible.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiywDVCPzwI

      There are about 11 million illegal immigrants, and another 12 million green card holders. If just 10% of those vote (mostly out of ignorance and misinformation spread by activists and media), that’s 2.3 million illegal votes.

  38. Are you fricken kidding me??? Trump as the crying baby on this story. WTF.

    Hillary is the one who said “we don’t question election results in this country, that’s just not right” and is now crying about losing the election…

  39. If Trumps won half of the vote that went to Gary Johnson and McMullin, then be would have beaten Clinton on both EC and popular vote. Considering Trump received more votes than Romney, a more unified GOP base would have really delivered a statement win.

    I have no doubt that a few thousands of ineligible voters (the dead still get ballots) voted this year. But that’s drop in the bucket compared to the hardcore fiscal (not social!) conservatives, Mormons, and depressed republican voters who didn’t vote for Trump. He under performed in the red parts of the west, where NeverTrump was probably the most visible.

    Trump knows this, which is why he’s considering the likes of Romney and Cruz for positions of power. That’s his olive branch to his right leaning skeptics. He’s making a big deal of voter fraud again because he can’t let any sort of slight against him go unanswered. And I don’t think It’s a matter of “ego”. There are normal, decent people in life who HAS to set the “record straight” on just about even the most trivial things. You guys might have friends who are like this.

    1. ” He’s making a big deal of voter fraud”

      I thought that was a Stein, Clinton job.

  40. I don’t like Hillary Having said that, there is a difference between paying for a legal challenge that is every candidate’s right and the fact that you have a President Elect pretty much accusing millions of people living in this country as engaging in voter fraud. Talk about being a sore winner. The moron needs to realize that he is a President Elect now and with that carries some responsibility of at least trying to appear to be the leader of the entire country and not just his sycophants. If he has doubts, he needs to do send his legal team to do the proper procedures to stamp out such improper acts. Not just run his mouth like some grade school kid.

    1. Who is the “moron”, the one who makes the statement, or the one who fails to understand the point of the statement?

      He’s not demanding anything per se. He’s calling a bluff.

      1. No, he’s instigating a witch hunt against good, hard working people. Do you have any concept of an honest day’s work, kb?

        1. There is no reason why you have to find the stupidest possible thing to say, but damned if you don’t try hard.

          1. I bet you’re a personal injury lawyer.

            1. Is there such a job as professional retard? Because you’ve nailed the qualifications for that one.

              1. I’ll hire you for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Wow – what a dilemma for you.

                1. I don’t work for people who can’t string together coherent thoughts.

                  1. The only place I accept string thoughts is in String Theory.

        2. No, he’s instigating a witch hunt against good, hard working people.

          No, he is simply saying that those “good, hard working people” should be “good, hard-working people” in the countries where they are actually citizens, rather than in the US.

  41. at least he’s being consistent finally….he always said the election would be fraudulent, but for a while there it only seemed to be something he had conviction of if he had lost. so this is improvement…?

  42. Trump is trying to instigate violence against illegals – after they’ve cooked cleaned and built stuff for us for decades, suddenly they are an existential threat and going to kill and rape us and steal our country. I will admit, Trump’s a genius at incitement. He’s the master baiter.

    1. genius at incitement

      Total people “incited” by this alleged “genius”: approximately 0

      1. Just wait until the inauguration. Things will change so fast your head will spin. The rash of hate crimes we’re experiencing now will seem like a fond memory compared to what he has in store for us.

        1. Right. The gestapo is coming any day now. This is not delusional. Keep telling yourself that any day now violence will manifest behind Trump. There’s nothing wrong with hoping that people get hurt. Nothing at all.

          1. Oh kb. Don’t make me feel sorry for you.

            1. That is physically impossible. You would have to have a soul first.

              1. Funny. I didn’t think anarcho-Trumpkins believed in such things.

                1. See, you can’t even pass the Voight-Kampff test. Pathetic.

                  1. How about the Mein-Kampf test?

        2. The rash of hate crimes we’re experiencing now will seem like a fond memory compared to what he has in store for us.

          Preemptive violence is the only rational course.

          1. We must out-fascist the fascists before their fascism becomes evident!

        3. The rash of hate crimes we’re experiencing now will seem like a fond memory compared to what he has in store for us.

          You’re right: it’s quite possible that after the inauguration,Hillary supporters will be smearing even more swastikas on buildings and cars and make even more fake reports of hate crimes.

          1. Common-sense Post-It Note control.

    2. after they’ve cooked cleaned and butt stuffed for us for decades,

  43. Stupid, defiant anarcho-Trumpkins. Why do you forsake your Founder?

  44. Suddenly 12 Steps doesn’t seem so bad….

    1. Working the 12 Steps takes humility, another quality you lack.

      1. You poor, poor unfortunate.

        1. Fortune favors the stupid, so you must be really fortunate.

  45. My frankentrumpkins – they are alive!!!!!

  46. RE: Trump Says Millions Voted Illegally but Any Recount Would Be Pointless

    There has never been any voter fraud in the USA.
    Just ask the tens of thousands of dead people who voted in Chicago for the past half century if you don’t believe me.

  47. HA HA HEY REASON SUCK MOAR HILLARY STRAP-ON DILDO

  48. Let’s think this through.

    (1) A recount doesn’t help finding illegal voters, that’s why it is “pointless”.

    (2) Nobody knows how many illegal voters there are. Given that there are 11 million illegal immigrants and that media aimed at immigrants, as well as Obama seem to support a narrative that “illegal immigrants are citizens”, “should vote”, and are “protected” by the anonymity of the voting booth, I wouldn’t find it surprising if 10-20% of illegal immigrants actually do vote.

    Note that, whether they vote or not, illegal immigrants count in determining congressional districts; California would lose several seats if illegal immigrants were removed from the country (or not counted).

  49. Reason – a thinking man’s forum? I subscribe to Reason, but find some of the article’s writers have a blind spot about the (massive) election fraud that occurs, mainly from the left. Multiple voting, voting in several states, absentee ballots filled out without proper verification, no required identification. electronic voting machines that register votes other than what has been cast, and myriad other evils. No Vote fraud? You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not recognize the evidence of it. A few million? It is certainly a credible figure.

  50. Trump is the most bombastic guy in the room as usual, but Democrats are still the desperate ones. The recounts will accomplish less than the 2000 recounts.

  51. On this week’s “Penn Sunday School” (recorded 1 week before airing), Penn went on record as declaring ALL of Trump’s cabinet nominations to be “the worst possible.”

    Not sure who he prefers Mrs. Clinton,* Bernie Sanders, or even Jill Stein to replace in the lineup to improve things. Stay tuned!

    *He voted for her in a trade with Californians & others.

  52. Interesting that Reason has nothing to say regarding the BS Jill Stein recount, but doubles-down on Trump.

  53. With about 12 million Illegals in US, there are 24 additional congressmen, and an equal number of Electoral Votes. Most congressmen and Electoral Votes represented by Democrats

  54. Trump could be right. Millions of illegal immigrants have the opportunity to register illegally with nobody checking to see if it happen. There is literally no way to know if Trump is right or wrong. Personally I think it is a lot less than three million, but I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

  55. >Can both propositions be true? Only if you assume, as Trump apparently does, that millions of
    >illegal voters 1) exist and 2) favor Hillary Clinton.
    >

    Given the very limited Trump reference you provided (out of context), reason provides that 1) and 2) are not necessary conditions for the existence of a “scam.” Trump’s scam proposition could very likely refer to Jill Stein’s post-election fund drive and the proposition stands on its own, or it could refer to a number of other possibilities that also stand on their own. Nonetheless, Trump might very well believe that millions of illegal votes were cast or planted and such cheating benefited Hillary Clinton. Putting the scenario another way (your way?): If Trump is correct, reason indicates that a legitimate recount (recounts in all states with narrow margins) would not change the outcome of the election, because Trump already won the national election and the recount would only increase the margin of his victory. Trump very likely reasons that given the impossibility of election outcome change, the motivation for recounts must be based on something else. Thus recount efforts are a scam. I see nothing wrong with Trump’s reasoning here and 1) and 2) are not unreasonable assumptions, as you are implying.

  56. Because unlike the author, Trump and everyone with an IQ over 80 knows that you can’t tie a voter to a vote. So even if you had iron-clad proof of massive fraud, there are still no way to take the piss out of the pool. The recount will not eliminate those votes.

    No, the only “recounting” that will be done are newly discovered Hillary votes (with the ink still wet) that were “lost” on election day. Remember the Bush-Gore recounts, where Republican monitors were being sidelined and each successive recount would “discover” more votes for Gore?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.