3. There were over 120 million votes cast......and there are maybe 30 million illegals....
Logic and experience evince that way more than 200,000 votes were cast by illegals.
Hillary lost......face it.
Exccept there's no evidence any illegals voted, much less 1.3 million of them.
It's up to winning by 1.4 MILLION now....should surpass 2 million when the count is done on absentee voters.
there has been just one case of voter fraud by an illegal that has been prosecuted recently, it took place in Texas, an illegal Mexican woman that voted in 3 or 4 elections/primaries over a few years, and she was a registered REPUBLICAN, who was married to an American man...
"Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations."
Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens
Certainly you are more intelligent.... than to just accept FAKE NEWS...without even trying to discern the truth....?
Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in 2016?
Oh, the irony.
You actually claimed my post was based on 'fake news'....then you prove it using fake pundits?????
Gads, you're a fool.
PolitiFact.org,
This bias is evident in:
1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate
PolitiFact examination;2
2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;
and
3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis
and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.
http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf
Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that
PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.
All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".
PolitiFact.com - Wikipedia
The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis.
PolitiFact Bias: About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ
"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.
Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest."
PolitiFact Parent Tampa Bay Times Scores Pants on Fire for Partisan Bias - Media Trackers
PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)
PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate) | RedState
Some people,like you, lack the ability to laugh at themselves...that's where I come in.
So.....did illegal aliens vote????
How many?