Pages

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

The Party of Science loses their bid to withhold voter data for analysis...

A federal judge on Monday rejected complaints that President Trump’s voter integrity commission was breaking the law by requesting and storing states’ voter data, saying that as long as the panel is just advisory, it doesn’t need to meet strict standards that would apply to government agencies.
Commission Vice Chairman Kris W. Kobach welcomed the ruling and told The Washington Times that they’ll soon reach out to states to renew their request for information, which he had put on hold while the judge was deciding.
“Several states have already said they’re standing by ready to send in the publicly available voter rolls,” Mr. Kobach said.
A number of states have also balked at sharing their voter data with the commission — even though many of them make the same information available for purchase by campaigns, political parties, researchers or even the general public.
Mr. Kobach said his latest count is that about a dozen states are saying they’ll refuse, though he said some of them may reconsider. Meanwhile, more than 30 states have indicated they’ll cooperate to varying degrees.
He said some of those states have laws that do require payment for the information, and he said the commission will comply with those laws.
“Sometimes the left-leaning media was trying to spin that into a state saying no, and that’s not the case at all,” he said

Make no mistake... the "Party of science" only wants objected data driven analysis when they can control and manipulate the data to say what they want it to say.  One has to wonder what exactly these states (who are refusing to comply) have to hide?

Ultimately, considering most of this data is available to the general public (or should be) it will be difficult for states to refuse to even "sell" the data to the Federal Government as they would a campaign or political party. Imagine if states were allowed to pick and choose who they provided data to and who they didn't. How long would it be till a state with a Republican Governor and Republican congress decided to only sell their voter data to the GOP and not the Democrats?

40 comments:

Commonsense said...

They now don't have a legal leg to stand on to refuse the request.

They must comply or be held in contempt.

opie said...

Yep...they are going to find science to be a complete hoax.....and millions of votes giving trump the victory he obsessively desires. LOLOLOL

opie said...

Make no mistake... the "Party of science" only wants objected data driven analysis when they can control and manipulate the data to say what they want it to say

You really are a joke, CH. I guess math and data are something that is beyond your infantile grasp as you ape wing nut talking points, Sad really sad.

Myballs seeing America become great again said...

FBI just siezed more smashed hard drives, this time from Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

But they've nothing to hide.

C.H. Truth said...

I have a math/statistics minor from college Opie... guess what, neither math or data have anything to do with "politics".

I guess if you already don't trust what the data might reveal about voting patterns (even before it's been gathered and analyzed)... then that is your own problem.



Anonymous said...

If the facts don't fit the truth, change he facts.
--Albert Einstein, according to Ivanka Trump on Twitter.

The fact that Einstein never said any such thing only makes this tweet that much more perfect.'
--Colin Dickey on Twitter.

Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
--Abraham Lincoln on Twitter.

Diamonds are a girl's best friend.
--Mahatma Gandhi on Twitter.

Loretta said...

"good old decent democracy minded james"

Doesn't exist.

No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell?

rrb said...

Diamonds are a girl's best friend.
--Mahatma Gandhi on Twitter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"shitty policies, shitty politics"

- papa dems


KD, Dems have a new tactic, stop pay said...

Can anyone explain to me why my opinion of Jane matters to her, so deeply now she has said this:

Anonymous good old decent democracy minded james said...
How do I act, KD? Tell me exactly what you say I do or am.

July 25, 2017 at 10:41 AM

and not to many days ago this:

"James said...
Tell me exactly what I am, KD.


July 21, 2017 at 5:29 PM"

I mean , really Jane does not know "what" or "am"...... when did it become my job to identify Jane?

It is a hoot to watch her.

Mean while, what happen to the funding of BLM riots and the other paid for and bussed in "faux protests"?

PNC said...

Trump's big government Voter Surveillance Commission (face it, that's exactly what it is) represents a betrayal of public trust.

Instead of thinking like a Trump-wing NYC elitist pretending to channel the "anger" of the American voter, try to actually put yourselves in the shoes of voters:

Everything about the voting process has an aura of privacy. You mark your ballot in the privacy of the voting booth. If you're voting a paper ballot, they give you a secrecy envelope. If you're voting electronically, your entire session is cleared when you're done and totally inaccessible when the next voter comes in. You get the impression that your privacy is respected and assiduously protected.

And then you find out all your shit is available to every two-bit partisan hack who wants it.

It's not surprising that people are cancelling their voter registrations over this.

rrb said...


pnc - it's not the privacy of voting that's in question. it's the sanctity. furthermore, who anyone votes for is not being shared. whether they voted at all, how many times, and where is what's of interest.



Myballs seeing America become great again said...

Voter registration is private? Since when?

You're getting made up news from cnn?

PNC said...

Rrb:
"whether they voted at all, how many times, and where is what's of interest."

None of which is the federal government's business, let alone the business of a commission of unelected Trump hacks.

PNC said...

Myballs seeing America becoming a pale ghost of its former greatness:
"Voter registration is private? Since when?"

Typical voter registration information is not the only data being demanded by Trump's unelected Voter Surveillance Czars.

rrb said...

None of which is the federal government's business
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

if that's none of the government's business then the sanctity of the vote could never be enforced. your ability to conduct fair and honest elections has been compromised.

no one gives a shit who you voted for. but someone claiming to be you or i (if we decided to skip a particular election) is of great interest, or should be.

if you don't think so, then let's just enable on line voting with no restrictions, and we can turn every election into a cyber hunger/election games.

fuck it. let's accelerate the descent into chaos and anarchy. we're already in a cold civil war that's poised to go hot. those of us who are armed to the teeth would really rather not, but if you insist...


Loretta said...

This loon again...

"PNC February 21, 2017 at 3:33 PM

I'm going to go on record: Trump (or one of his surrogates) paid to have provocateurs riot in Sweden. The timing is just too improbable otherwise.

Makes you wonder about a number of other proven right within days statements Trump has made about terrorism, immigration, etc.

You heard it here first."

PNC said...

Rub:
"if that's none of the government's business then the sanctity of the vote could never be enforced. your ability to conduct fair and honest elections has been compromised."

Note that I said it's not the FEDERAL government's business. See Amendment X.

PNC said...

Has Gonorhetta stopped getting abortions to cover up her unfaithfulness yet?

rrb said...

Note that I said it's not the FEDERAL government's business. See Amendment X.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i understand and i'd like to agree with you, but i'm a conservative in deep blue NY. i trust absolutely no one in my state government to represent the rights of anyone other than democrats. therefore a federal level solution is of interest to me.

and i would expect liberals in red states to feel the same.

PNC said...

Rrb:
"i understand and i'd like to agree with you, but i'm a conservative in deep blue NY"

Stop right there. You're not conservative if you support an unelected federal committee usurping powers not granted by the Constitution. Period.

C.H. Truth said...

Everything about the voting process has an aura of privacy. You mark your ballot in the privacy of the voting booth. If you're voting a paper ballot, they give you a secrecy envelope. If you're voting electronically, your entire session is cleared when you're done and totally inaccessible when the next voter comes in. You get the impression that your privacy is respected and assiduously protected.

That same information can be legally sold to the Political Parties and Campaigns...

You think that having a federal review of the data is a bigger privacy issue than selling it to a campaign so they can spam you with political propaganda?

PNC said...

The "legal" sale of people's data (to mail advertisers, telemarketers, email spammers and, yes, political campaigns) without their express permission has in recent years risen to the level of a public nuisance as well as a potential identity theft risk and should indeed be curtailed.

Most Americans agree with me here. But you can use that argument and take your movement out on that shaky limb if you want. It's not like you folks aren't already pursuing an agenda that most of the American public opposes.

Myballs said...

Well that chased her off the board.

Myballs said...

Ok. I guess not. Good.

Loretta said...

This loon again...

"PNC February 21, 2017 at 3:33 PM

I'm going to go on record: Trump (or one of his surrogates) paid to have provocateurs riot in Sweden. The timing is just too improbable otherwise.

Makes you wonder about a number of other proven right within days statements Trump has made about terrorism, immigration, etc.

You heard it here first."

Bat shit insane.

You heard it here first.

Loretta said...

"You think that having a federal review of the data is a bigger privacy issue than selling it to a campaign so they can spam you with political propaganda?"

The guy suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, so there's that...

rrb said...

Stop right there. You're not conservative if you support an unelected federal committee usurping powers not granted by the Constitution. Period.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

uh, the same data that has your tampax in a twist is available for sale, so i'm not very concerned about a foe of voter fraud gleaning the info for evidence of democrat shenanigans.

rrb said...

Anonymous PNC said...
The "legal" sale of people's data (to mail advertisers, telemarketers, email spammers and, yes, political campaigns) without their express permission has in recent years risen to the level of a public nuisance as well as a potential identity theft risk and should indeed be curtailed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


yup.

and the feds put into place, and were crowing about, their infamous 'do not call list' that every telemarketer/scammer on planet earth has been disregarding since chuck schumer went on tv to tell me how wonderful it was going to be.

talk about a public nuisance that the feds couldn't care less about...

C.H. Truth said...

PNC...

You have to register to vote. You sign in to vote. You have to provide this information to the State Government already (ID, Address, etc). If you don't want to turn over your private information to the State... then don't vote.

I guess other than my right to "vote" in private and not have anyone disclose my personal choices... the rest of that information I am willingly giving over and have no expectations that my Name, Address, voting history remains private.

There is no logical reason why you should feel okay providing your state, the DNC, RNC, and every campaign your information...

but then get all up in arms because the Feds want to research possible voter fraud...

Unless of course you have other political motivations... or have an IQ of around 70.

PNC said...

If we want to talk about loons, maybe we can consider the senile bulldyke who saves other people's posts from months ago like she thinks she's got some kind of dossier.

Who regularly spams the comments sections with "LOL" like some kind of Tourette's patient crossed with a YouTube-commenting fucktard.

Pretty clear who displays obvious patterns of mental illness here.

rrb said...

or have an IQ of around 70.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

oh geezus. please don't bring 0pie into this...

Loretta said...

You have to wonder why liberals like the schizzo are so against investigating vote fraud...

Loretta said...

"oh geezus. please don't bring 0pie into this..."

We know for sure the conspiracy freak doesn't qualify.

LOL.

Trump sent surrogates to riot in Sweden, dontchaknow!

Loretta said...

Schizzo.

LOL

PNC said...

C.H.:
"You have to register to vote. You sign in to vote. You have to provide this information to the State Government already (ID, Address, etc). If you don't want to turn over your private information to the State... then don't vote."

Again, Amendment X. Read it. What's state government business and what's the federal government's business are not the same thing.

C.H.:
"There is no logical reason why you should feel okay providing your state, the DNC, RNC, and every campaign your information..."

See above. I'm all for curtailing the practice of selling people's data to political campaigns and other entities.

C.H.:
"Unless of course you have other political motivations..."

The Constitution is my political motivation.

I realize that's hard for Republicans to understand nowadays, since the GOP has become a completely and irrecoverably big government party under Trump and the Constitution is now viewed by Republicans as an inconvenience to be ignored and bypassed in the pursuit of their agenda.

PNC said...

Gonorhetta:
"You have to wonder why liberals like the schizzo are so against investigating vote fraud..."

I'm not against going after voter fraud, as I've indicated on here numerous times in the past.

Hell, you're the stalkerish weirdo keeping a dossier of what everyone else has said on here for years. Look it up in your X-files, cultist.

Loretta said...

Sure schizzo.

C.H. Truth said...

PNC -

Sometimes common sense has to come before some blind affiliation with States rights. Especially when you deem it to be a "State's right" to sell your voting information to private parties, but not the Federal Government.

And while I appreciate your desire to "curtail" the ability of States to sell voter information to private parties... the fact is that such a "curtail" does not currently exist.

As it stands, the states "can" and "do" sell voter information to private parties. As long as they do so... then the Federal Government has just as much right to it as anyone else (arguably more right to it in this case).

Make these irrelevant arguments till you are blue in the face. This is simply a line of argument directly tied to your hatred of Trump and your strong desire to keep voter fraud hidden.

PNC said...

C.H.:
"Sometimes common sense has to come before some blind affiliation with States rights."

I suggest that the Framers who made Amendment 10 EXTREMELY CLEAR were well above average in the common sense department, and that their abundant common sense is precisely the reason they added Amendment X and phrased it in the unambiguous way they did.

I suggest that the reason the federal government has become the bloated liberal swamp that it is today is primarily because many people put so-called "common sense" (more often just a code-word for their agenda) over the common sense of the Founders who sought to limit the power and scope of the federal government through provisions such as Amendment X.

I suggest that when you're following the same route, you've become part of the problem.

C.H.:
"And while I appreciate your desire to "curtail" the ability of States to sell voter information to private parties... the fact is that such a "curtail" does not currently exist."

This is because all of the talk from the parties about privacy and individual rights is purely lip service. And it's why next time you try to make an argument from the principles of privacy and individual rights, I'm going to dismiss it as hypocrisy.

"This is simply a line of argument directly tied to your hatred of Trump and your strong desire to keep voter fraud hidden."

As the manager of this blog, you know that I have no "strong desire to keep voter fraud hidden". You know that I have remarked numerous times on the pervasiveness of Democrat voter fraud and the need to prevent it, primarily through a reliable system of Voter ID.

For that matter, it's a fact that Trump supporters committed voter fraud in the 2016 election, with the specific amount being unknown (though the "Trump projection rule" could apply here). And so, as a Trump opponent, I'm all for getting to the bottom of voter fraud and preventing it in the future--by CONSTITUTIONAL means.

C.H. Truth said...

I don't believe that the framers would find the logic of the State providing information to private citizens (for a price) but then demanding that the same information cannot be provided to the Federal Government.

Especially when the issue involves a probe into people cheating in our federal election. I believe that they might be quite in favor of finding out exactly how much cheating is happening and what might be done to stop it.

I think that they would probably view with suspicion states who refused to cooperate.