They do polling at the state level. Am I missing something? I truly mean that, please explain.

Atlanta won the Superbowl, y'all.

The police action initially targeted the black bloc. So far I haven't seen any good reason why the police needed to intervene at that point in time.
Previously there were some burning cars and smashed windows but as far as I can tell not at that place or time.

Clinton supporters have absolutely no problem with it. In fact, they call you racist if you're on the side that wants to end/mitigate/prevent illegal immigration.

At this point, what could Trump do or accomplish that would have you publicly admit admiration or paise for him?

This constant spew of the popular vote (which doesn't matter) and that Trump is stupid (which he clearly is not) just seems petty and bitter.

You are literally pulling out arguments from 2 years ago. He's beaten you at every turn, after how many of your sides false predictions? The entire forum lost money on him. People have been permabanned due to him.

You're wrong, dude, you're simply flat out wrong. He did really win the Republican nomination. He did really win the presidency. He did really beat all of your predictions and he really has people loyal to him.

You sound like the guy at the bar who's favorite team is getting their asses beat on TV screaming that the refs are calling the game in the other teams favor. It's not just silly, it's downright embarrassing.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...-vote-in-2016/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-from-nonciti/

http://www.worldtribune.com/report-e...ng-to-clinton/

Most sources are saying ~800000. Strangely enough, 53% of Democratic party are for illegal immigrants being able to vote, despite the fact it is illegal. I wonder why....

wil,

I recognize that understanding simple conversations is very difficult for people as stupid as you, but the appropriate analogy here is not liberals saying "Atlanta won the Super Bowl". Conservatives are saying "New England had fewer turnovers" and liberals are saying "no, they didn't", and for some reason conservatives are the ones that brought up this dumb tangent and really wanted to talk about it.

So your offer opinion and further accusations. That is what you have to support the initial post concerning 'illegal voters' but not anything like evidence.

Go Falcons!

An interesting map of the demographics that voted in 2016. Not surprising to me.
http://imgur.com/a/deait

It's fascinating to me that it's always the conservative posters on this forum that have the greatest difficulties with technology

You're an idiot.

If Trump really wanted to shake things up, divide the left, still keep most of the right and probably win in 2020 he'd raise taxes on the wealthy (as he promised) and push for Medicare for all. But he won't because first and foremost, even more than a fascist, he's a grifter.

The fact that I know how to copy an image link and you don't speaks volumes. You mad, bro?

He says all kind of dumb things so that's not going to work. Any other ideas?

Like the liberal Excel models that had Clinton at 120%?

He doesn't need to divide the left. The left is divided. And toxic.

He's already preparing for 2020. I think it's actually going to get worse. He's going to replace Ginsberg and Kennedy, and the midterms are in no way a lock.

This is just the beginning, not the end.

Actually, it's only one source. All three of these articles are referring to one particular 2014 study on non-citizens voting, which is an analysis of data collected via the CCES.

However, there is a subtle but important flaw in that study, which is explained very thoroughly in this article. Here are the cliffs notes:

In other words, the data this study relies on is self-reported voting, from a large survey. Because people make mistakes filling out surveys, you have to account for measurement error. When dealing with a very small sub-population within a larger population, the impact of even a 1% measurement error can be enormous. The 538 article provides a helpful interactive feature that allows you to see how this works. The entire 538 article is worth a read if you're at all interested in research methodology.

It is almost certainly the case that some number of non-citizens successfully vote. It's unlikely they all vote for one candidate, of course. The methodology used by this particular study is almost certainly not a reliable way to estimate the number.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if an illegal immigrant actually did manage to cast a vote, it doesn't necessarily mean they voted for Clinton?

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if an illegal immigrant actually did manage to cast a vote, they absolutely 100% voted for Hillary Clinton?

Yes. If you read the 2014 study that DoOrDoNot cited, you'll find that they talk about the fact that some non-citizens who try to register to vote or vote do so because they don't even know they aren't allowed. In other words, they aren't even necessarily trying to commit fraud. There's no reason to believe that 100% of whatever number of non-citizens attempt to vote or succeed are all voting for one candidate. Just like every other demographic, they can have fairly diverse views. It doesn't work that well to try to extrapolate too far from some of Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric to voting patterns. For example, Trump did better than Romney among Hispanics.

No, of course they voted for Jill Stein, LDO.

Are you ****ing high? If you're high I'll give you a pass here, we can revisit this tomorrow. Really, it's ok.

LOOOOOOOOOLWIL

This is a real stretch of the imagination dude. Like, I can POSSIBLY see you making an argument that of the people who voted illegally unknowingly, it's possible Trump got, 20% of them. Maybe possibly I could see that argument. But of the people who knowingly voted who were aware of their illegal status? Absolutely not.

If you're an illegal and one candidate is for open borders and the other is talking about Mexican rapists (portrayed in media) and speaks about deporting people, I don't see how a rational person can think that person would consider the deporter. Because he thinks that candidate would give him a tax cut that'll help him at 6 bucks an hour under the table?

I'm almost speechless.

I'll leave it to the judgment of the forum. What you are suggesting is patently absurd, and I'm confident people will see how bad your suggestion is.

I really can't believe we are discussing this.

THE GOALPOSTS, THEY R A SHIFTIN'

WILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL