But as you said, removing one million dead (or otherwise inactive) voters from rolls isn't "voter fraud." There is no evidence that any of the voters names removed were used in elections. Allowing trump to misuse information in self-supporting lies that create or increase doubt in our elections only hurts our democracy. Just one of the core institutions that trump has attacked.
I understand what you are saying..... but he did lie, and he didn't claim there were 1.5 million dead or moved voters on the roll in California.
@NewRoxFan, @Nook, sure, but the articles don't even reference or acknowledge the Judicial Watch settlement. The passive reader is left to infer that Trump must have entirely made it up like some psychopath, which isn't the case. The settlement is relevant. There's no good excuse to not include a factual sentence that lets readers know that Trump is probably alluding to it.
What's worse... that trump made it entirely up like some psychopath, or that he took a factual event (CA cleaning up its voters rolls, TX investigating its voter lists) and then lying about each event to mislead people into thinking there is widespread voter fraud happening in CA and TX?? btw, I think this was a tweet by a reporter, reporting on a tweet by trump.
Shouldn't it be incumbent upon the person stating the 'fact' to cite the reference as to where he got the fact?
I have no problem with them stating that it is possible the President is relying on "X" or "Y"..... but the President should say that then. Do we even know that is what he is relying on, or are we assuming? Ultimately I believe it is on the person making the claim to state what he is relying on if there is something in particular. I am all for as much valid information being given to the public, and has the President said he was relying upon "X" then I would be upset that it wasn't reported. However in this case, it seems that we are not even sure what he is relying on for sure. This would go for any politician or any public policy maker with a claim. I suppose the reader could be told "We speculate the President is attributing his statement to "X" but that opens up problems too because it is an assumption. I normally agree with you on these types of issues, and you are IMO fair on issues of transparency but this one is going a step to far IMO based on what I know.
I'm assuming. And yall are right that Trump should be telling us the source for his claims. It's pretty annoying that he doesn't, and it may be that newspapers are trying to goad him into citing sources by using phrases like "without evidence." In this California case, I don't think I assume too much though, and I think it's a shame I had to hunt to find it when a journalist could have offered it. They could have asked his press office if he was referencing Judicial Watch and then quoted the response. I suppose my larger point -- because I was grousing about wall coverage last week -- is that I'm 'policing my own' by looking at my own news sources and asking why they aren't giving more of a lens into the Trumpist worldview. It seems like they are so busy holding Trump to account, they aren't willing to do the analysis they would ordinarily do, lest they do Trump's work for him. But that just makes it harder for me to understand why Trumpers think the way they do.
Yep, I was going to cite the California issue: California Secretary of State Alex Padilla is rebutting allegations by a Washington, D.C., group that 11 California counties, including San Diego County, have more registered voters than adults eligible to vote. Padilla is calling the claim “baseless” even as the organization, Judicial Watch, threatens to sue the state if it does not adjust its voter records. But your link would seem to be more updated.
Very good question, esp. in San Francisco: "San Francisco in November will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens the chance to vote in a local election, making the city once again a flashpoint in the debate about immigration. Noncitizens, including those without legal status, will be allowed to vote only in a school board race and just a little more than 40 have registered to vote so far." More at link: https://www.latimes.com/local/calif...isco-election-immigration-20181026-story.html
Another case of trump voter fraud claims being a fraud... and hopefully the weasel whitley gets shown the door... Federal judge rules there is no widespread voter fraud in Texas https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...ere-is-no-widespread-texas-voter-fraud-orders
