patrick.net

lostand confused says

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/dennis-kucinich-support-trumps-assertion-wiretapping-happened/

Former Representative Dennis Kucinich says he is no fan of President Trump but says he agrees with his assertion that Trump Tower was wiretapped. Kucinich said he was wiretapped in 2010 because he opposed the Obama invasion of Libya.

Why didn't tovarichpeter post this?

Does he have any evidence though?

rando says

Does he have any evidence though?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. When dealing with rogue government agents, one cannot simply assert that the government does no wrong unless someone can prove it. One should assume the government is doing wrong if there is no transparency. Doing wrong is the default human behavior.

Given the complete lack of oversight and the political and financial incentives, the wiretapping of politicians, by both other politicians and by heads of agencies wanting to put politicians favoring them in power, is almost certainly common in our nation and has been for quite some time. There is an unwritten rule that law enforcement does not investigate or prosecute or even let the public know about this. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I would be surprised if political spying wasn't the norm in our society, especially near the top of power.

Dan8267 says

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

I feel the same way about voter fraud.

just any guy says

Dan8267 says

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

I feel the same way about voter fraud.

Except that there is plenty of evidence that voter fraud does not happen. You can count who votes and when, and it turns out that there are at most only five votes that are questionable in each election.

In contrast, there are mountains of evidence of election fraud in terms of voter suppression with literally tens of millions of votes of living American citizens over 18 being suppressed each election. So if you cared about election integrity, this is what would piss you off.

Dan8267 says

Except that there is plenty of evidence that voter fraud does not happen

Pardon me but simply checking the "I am a citizen" box and then registering to vote can be fraud if you are NOT a citizen. But there's literally nobody in the registrar's office in California who is interested in whether registered voters are or aren't citizens. Maybe they feel like they are citizens, or should be, or would be if they hadn't hopped a border several months back. And they've been encouraged to "Vota!" So they do. These numbers are not found with recounts.

Ironman says

Most people try to do the RIGHT thing every day.

You certainly don't. Just look at your behavior on PatNet.

Quigley says

But there's literally nobody in the registrar's office in California who is interested in whether registered voters are or aren't citizens.

How many fraudulent votes do you really think are cast?

Here’s how rare in-person voter fraud is

The most significant chunk of those 241 are from 145 ballots that were cast between 2008 and 2011 in Michigan, where names, dates of birth and addresses of people who cast ballots matched those of people who'd died. Again, it's not clear if that's because someone had been signed in incorrectly at the polling place or if there had been some other clerical error. But for Levitt's expansive tally, it counts.

So that's 241 ballots -- out of 1 billion cast.

So, counting every single clerical error as a fraudulent vote would place an upper limit on voter fraud of 241 per billion ballots or 0.0000241%. Mind that this is an upper limit that grossly overcounts fraud. In reality most, if not all, of those ballots are valid, but with wrong personal information on them.

In contrast, voter ID laws in Texas alone prevented 600,000 legal voters from voting. Now that's massive fraud. I assume you are far more pissed off 600,0000 Americans being denied the right to vote than at most 241 fraudulent votes being cast. Right?

And, of course, you are outraged that the anti-drug laws passed by Republicans were designed for the sole purpose of rigging elections by preventing American taxpaying citizens from voting. I mean, if you weren't outraged by that, it would be complete hypocrisy.

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Ehrlichman's comment is the first time the war on drugs has been plainly characterized as a political assault designed to help Nixon win, and keep, the White House.

So anyone who is at all concerned about election fraud would be call for the immediate revocation of all anti-drug laws, the release of all prisoners held on drug-related charges, and the immediate overturning of their convictions.

There is ample election fraud in the United States. It is all committed by the right, as it has always been. The right has always been against free, transparent, honest, and fair election throughout the history of our country. They have always rigged election. Examples:
1. Counting blacks as 3/5th of a person for assigning representatives, but not let blacks vote.
2. Being against non-land owners from having the right to vote.
3. Opposing black and women's rights to vote.
4. Imposing poll taxes.
5. Jim Crow laws.
6. Gerrymandering
7. Voter ID laws intended solely to suppress votes, not to counter fraudulent votes.
8. Deliberate discarding of votes
9. Intimidating voters
10. Creating laws to criminalize people for the sole purpose of taking away their freedom to vote

Conservatives have done everything possible to undermine elections.

The fact is that you shouldn't even have to register to vote. You don't have to register to pay taxes. There is no reason that in the Information Age, hell even in the 1920s, that the government doesn't know exactly who is a citizen and who is not, and exactly who is alive and who is dead. Citizens should not have to jump through hoops to vote. If anything, we should make voting compulsory. We'd get better results.

Every supermarket should have a high-tech voting booth where people can cast or change their vote anytime up to four months before election day. With near 100% of the voting population actually voting, conservatives would not win a single federal election. Not even in red states.

Dan8267 says

Except that there is plenty of evidence that voter fraud does not happen. You can count who votes and when, and it turns out that there are at most only five votes that are questionable in each election.

Until an independent audit is performed in every state that proves there is no voter fraud, I'm always going to believe that there's voter fraud. It's too easy to commit and it goes unchecked, so my deductive reasoning tells me that it happens on a significant level. We even have video evidence of a Democrat official admitting that voter fraud occurs. If we had something like e-verify in place and proof of citizenship was required, then I wouldn't believe there is significant. I don't understand why this seems unreasonable.

just any guy says

Until an independent audit is performed in every state that proves there is no voter fraud, I'm always going to believe that there's voter fraud.

Independent audits have been performed. They reveal at worst 241 ballots per billion, and that's including clerical errors. The fact is that there is damn little incentive to vote at all, nonetheless risk prison by voting illegally.

Do you really think that fraudulent votes outnumber fraudulent denial of votes? All evidence demonstrates the later is many orders of magnitude larger.

just any guy says

If we had something like e-verify in place and proof of citizenship was required, then I wouldn't believe there is significant. I don't understand why this seems unreasonable.

The unreasonable part of voter ID laws is that they are designed solely to prevent citizens from legitimately voting. It would be utterly trivial to give every person a biometric, unforgeable ID at the cost of the state. This could even be done at the voting polls. In fact, votes could be recorded even for unverified persons and the state could take its damn time verifying the citizenship of the voter before counting the vote. This all could be done without letting a single unconfirmed vote in and without denying anyone the right to vote. But such a solution would be opposed by Republicans precisely because it would not decrease voter turnout among minorities. Hell, done right, it would greatly increase turn out and that's the last thing Republicans want.