95000 registered voters in one state are illegal voters

[Augustus]

Nope. They only know the extremely super obvious, and that is that "at some point in time" those immigrants who voted were none citizens. Well no ****, Sherlock. Even with domestic immigration there is a time when they are officially not recognized as citizens of their new home state.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if this 'study' quietly disappears never to be heard of again. As this thread shows, it has served its purpose as some people now believe 95,000 illegals voted.

That's why imo people should avoid the daily news media as consuming it means exposure to false information, and, no matter how careful you are, some of this will be remembered as fact. At best, you can only somewhat reduce the amount of bad information that affects you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's why imo people should avoid the daily news media as consuming it means exposure to false information, and, no matter how careful you are, some of this will be remembered as fact. At best, you can only somewhat reduce the amount of bad information that affects you.

I've found that even knowing bad/false news is a good to know, because it tends to silence people and get them to pay more attention when you can name their sources (I've even turned a few Reader's Digest lovers into haters by beginning a my rebuttal of a junk "study" by starting with "You read that in Reader's Digest, didn't you?" It tends drive the point much deeper when they realize their sources are so consistently wrong that someone else can pinpoint the source (or at least a close related source) based on the patterns of how they are wrong - though with some issues, there are just too many presented slanted/biased accounts that it's impossible to tell, such as anything about the "War on Christmas" or claims that Christians as a whole are persecuted in America).
Being able to finish their sentences and continue on with what the source says also makes your opponent look very weak, as now you look so well informed you know both your position and their position.
And discrediting false news is an exercise for the brain, which is good. You can also learn many true things and other various facts as you seek information to discredit bad news (9/11 conspiracy theories are especially useful if you want to learn tons of random things that are relative to the day-to-day lives of only a few people).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya think. If it's possible without voter ID, it's really possible with voter ID.

I would seriously suggest that you quit while behind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't be surprised at all if this 'study' quietly disappears never to be heard of again. As this thread shows, it has served its purpose as some people now believe 95,000 illegals voted.

That's why imo people should avoid the daily news media as consuming it means exposure to false information, and, no matter how careful you are, some of this will be remembered as fact. At best, you can only somewhat reduce the amount of bad information that affects you.

Yes and no. Yes, they have a bunch of bigots and people with poor reading comprehension that will believe this story. But how else are we going to know what is going on without the media? All that can be done is to expose the flaws in this sort of story and try to keep the damage to a minimum.

 

[Augustus]

I've found that even knowing bad/false news is a good to know, because it tends to silence people and get them to pay more attention when you can name their sources (I've even turned a few Reader's Digest lovers into haters by beginning a my rebuttal of a junk "study" by starting with "You read that in Reader's Digest, didn't you?" It tends drive the point much deeper when they realize their sources are so consistently wrong that someone else can pinpoint the source (or at least a close related source) based on the patterns of how they are wrong - though with some issues, there are just too many presented slanted/biased accounts that it's impossible to tell, such as anything about the "War on Christmas" or claims that Christians as a whole are persecuted in America).
Being able to finish their sentences and continue on with what the source says also makes your opponent look very weak, as now you look so well informed you know both your position and their position.
And discrediting false news is an exercise for the brain, which is good. You can also learn many true things and other various facts as you seek information to discredit bad news (9/11 conspiracy theories are especially useful if you want to learn tons of random things that are relative to the day-to-day lives of only a few people).

That's information you know is false though. It's the stuff you don't know is false that is problematic.

 

[fantome profane]

If they claim to know they voted, they should know how they voted. I guarantee they can pull you up and show how you voted if they want to.

If they could do that it would be a much bigger scandal. No one is supposed to be able to determine who you voted for, ever.

Yep without voter ID that's possible.

If that were true it would be a perfect argument against voter ID. But it is not true.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, they have a bunch of bigots and people with poor reading comprehension that will believe this story.

Many people will remember it as true simply because they didn't pay enough attention to the details to correct this perception.

The default option on exposure to information is to accept it as true, rejection is the thing that is effortful (although it can be minimally effortful).

Yes and no. Yes, they have a bunch of bigots and people with poor reading comprehension that will believe this story. But how else are we going to know what is going on without the media? All that can be done is to expose the flaws in this sort of story and try to keep the damage to a minimum.

I stopped paying much attention to daily media and I still know what is happening because people talk about it.

The problem with breaking/daily news is that the facts are often uncertain. Information is corrected over time, so the less frequent the source, the more reliable (on average).Time massively improves the signal to noise ratio.

Also, most journalists are professional writers rather than experts in the area they are covering. Read newspaper articles on issues you know a lot about, and you frequently identify errors, biases, misrepresentations etc. (even in 'good' papers). Yet when you read articles on issues where you are less knowledgeable you operate under the belief that they are mostly accurate.

Knowledge comes from both learning correct information, and not learning false information. Unless we actively correct it, which is time consuming and effortful and consequently not always possible, exposure to false information decreases our knowledge.

It's unavoidable that the more we consume daily news media, the more false information we will absorb as true. Spending time reading less frequent, higher quality sources is much better in this regard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's information you know is false though. It's the stuff you don't know is false that is problematic.

That's what critical reading skills are for.

 

[Augustus]

That's what critical reading skills are for.

Unfortunately we don't have the knowledge, time or cognitive ability to correct everything we see, hear and read.

 

[Shad]

And apparently 58,000 of these voted.

But, I am happy to report, this does not constitute "wise-spread" even though it would tip the balance open many a race

Texas Secretary of State Questions Citizenship of 95,000 Registered Voters

This seems like a stretch using red tape of the immigration and voting systems based on old records. He should be getting the system fixed if the concern is that great.

 

[youknowme]

Personally, I tend to ignore the New York Times.

According to the Texas Tribune, which reported the news Trump is misconstruing, the Texas secretary of state’s office is circulating a “list of 95,000 registered voters who the state says counties should consider checking to see whether they are U.S. citizens and, therefore, legally eligible to vote.”

The key phrase here is that they “should consider checking” whether these registered voters are citizens, since they provided a valid visa or green card at the time they got their driver’s license. But many of these voters could have become citizens in the meantime. Of those names, the secretary of state said, 58,000 on the list have cast a vote in elections between 1996 and 2018. But that does not mean that they are all (or even mostly) non-citizens. And, furthermore, the secretary of state emphasized that these should be considered “WEAK” matches, and emphasized the word with all caps — a tactic Trump is all too familiar with.

In fact, the Tribune was aware that this news could be easily misinterpreted and even issued a tweet thread explaining what this list of names means (and doesn’t mean):

Trump Tweeted Fake News About Texas Voter Rolls – Rolling Stone

1/ You might be seeing headlines or tweets tonight that claim Texas says 58,000 non-citizens have voted in Texas. That is not true. That is not what the state has said. Here is what we know

Texas Tribune on Twitter

 

[youknowme]

Yep without voter ID that's possible.

A secret ballot is the law, you can't go around checking how people voted. It is done this way to make sure people are free to vote how they want without being pressured to vote a certain way.

But I do agree with your point, that if there were illegal votes there is no reason to assume they would be supporting just Dems.

 

[Kenny]

It didn't say they are illegal, but rather that the Texas Secretary of State questions the legality because, as the article points out, "at some point in identified themselves as a noncitizen to law enforcement."

Looking through the different reporting venues, it sounds more like there were 95,000 non-citizens on the voters roll. They then ask to check to see if there is fraud. I assume, some simply aren't updated and are now citizens. We also know that there are those who vote who had no right to. How much? I guess it is a wait and see.

Unfortunately you are mistaken.

Your statement isn't enough

Texas finds 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote, encourages local election officials to check into voter fraud

I read a little on this today. If they know illegals voted, they should break it down to how they voted. I doubt all voted democrat as some claim. If they have the evidence, break it down so we know the facts.

Agreed. I also agree that there is no way to know who they voted for. I can only assume that if you were not suppose to be on the role, one would vote for the party that doesn't mind if you are on the roll. But we will never know!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unfortunately we don't have the knowledge, time or cognitive ability to correct everything we see, hear and read.

True, but there are no gains without sacrifice.
At least a few times, as a case manager, I'd say something quoting a study only to realize later on I confused the results and numbers of the study I cited with another study.

Texas finds 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote, encourages local election officials to check into voter fraud

Though that article doesn't bring up the "at some point in time quote," is it very clear there are many unknowns and uncertainties, and that even if all 58,000 voted and illegally voted in the last election it would have still been less than 1% of the total vote, and that cases of voter fraud in Texas are rare, with 33 cases in 2017.
That source is extremely skeptical of the story.

 

[Augustus]

Your statement isn't enough

Texas finds 95,000 non-citizens registered to vote, encourages local election officials to check into voter fraud

Do you actually read the article, or just the headlines?

"95,000 individuals are registered to vote in the state, but are potentially not U.S. citizens... 58,000 of those registered voters cast a ballot in at least one election from 1996 to 2018.

However, the Texas Tribune reports that it is unknown how many of those 58,000 remain non-citizens."

 

[Kenny]

Do you actually read the article, or just the headlines?

"95,000 individuals are registered to vote in the state, but are potentially not U.S. citizens... 58,000 of those registered voters cast a ballot in at least one election from 1996 to 2018.

However, the Texas Tribune reports that it is unknown how many of those 58,000 remain non-citizens."

Have you read my posts? I have acknowledged that.

 

[HonestJoe]

]Trump Tweeted Fake News About Texas Voter Rolls – Rolling Stone

You’d think Trump would be the last person encourage us to take a recommendation to investigate an accusation as definitive proof of guilt and the tip of an iceberg of wider wrongdoing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Have you read my posts? I have acknowledged that.

And yet, you started a thread titled "95,000 registered voters in one state are illegal voters".

So, were you deliberately trying to mislead people with that title?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If they were not citizens then would they not be illegal voters, correct?

They would all have had to vote to be illegal voters. Did they?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ugh. The problem with stupid people is the don't know they're stupid.