Friday, September 8, 2017

Voter Fraud in N.H. - But It's AOK Under the Leftist Narrative, Which Is...

...there's NO voter fraud because Shut UP!
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016

Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.

Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.

It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.

Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016 presidential election in New Hampshire and to utilize same-day registration.

Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, also defeated incumbent U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte by only 1,017 votes.

These new data illustrate the problem with same-day registration laws: they prevent the ability to verify residency prior to the election -- and in a close election, that can make a difference.

As John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky pointed out in their book Who's Counting, same-day registration fraud won Al Franken his Senate seat, and that extra Democratic seat then gave the country Obamacare.


Steven Satak said...

Al Franken was always better as a genuine comedian than a political fraud.

David said...

It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.

And the evidence for that is... ?

Andrew K. said...

Hi Stan,
Long-time reader but quiet, shy to debate... Sorry for the unrelated question. Nothing recent related to that so I'll just ask here.
Why/what do you reject about the Theory of Evolution?
As an example, what specifically do you agree/disagree on here:

Stan said...

Andrew, Welcome.
This Atheist response is a classic example of why evolutionists can't actually think about evolution. Frankly I stopped reading at the following statement:

"Prior to that, RNA was already replicating itself and DNA as well. "

The author of the 13 Questions was correct to insist on actual evidence in support of evolution. The statement above is typical of those found in many books which claim to be "explaining" evolution to the stupid. But that statement is not factual in any manner, nor is it supportable either by observation or by empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable but not falsified, impartial and released data (the standard for empirical science).

So the statement is unproven, cannot be said to be true, yet is said as if it is true - so the statement itself is false in its intent. As for its content, all of the many, many experiments have not been able to replicate DNA reproduction, because DNA has not been shown to pop into existence even in ideal laboratory conditions. Further, DNA reproduction requires many ancillary components to be available and functioning, including the cellular centomere and its self-assembled microtubules, chromatin, keratin, the timing function for coordinating the sequence, a metabolic function, etc. further, the information driving the sequence must be independently extant and controlled by the timing function.

In providing gene copying, a large number of ancillary molecules, but most significantly the three necessary and sufficient components are DNA, RNA, RNA-ase.

The complexity goes far beyond "DNA replicated itself". And actually that claim is false due to the necessary extra components and prior information that are required.

His next sentence contains this bit:

"But he is no position to call me stupid just because I can prove that I know the answer and he doesn’t."

He doesn't know the answer. His "answer" is little more than an appeal to ignorance - his own.

As the Author of the Questions has asserted, the evolutionist cannot and will not provide actual material evidence for his claims of "knowing the answer". That is because for historical sciences, actual "knowledge" consists only of found artifacts, never the real-time observation of the functioning of the artifacts. All claims outside the particularities of the physical characteristics of the artifact is purely speculation - always. All of evolution theory, starting with generations before Darwin, is speculation: all of it. In short, there can be NO empirical, material evidence of historical originating processes, nor of "mutational" occurrences causing speciation.

Keep in mind that speculation = personal opinion.
Appeal to Authority = Appeal to Opinion.

However the evolutionist is arrogant in his assertion that he does, in fact, know facts that which the Questioner does not. Especially since he provides no facts.

Since this person failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, not even false evidence, then the premise given by the Questioner has been fully demonstrated to be the case.

Thanks for the contact, and please: feel free to question or contribute at any time. This was an interesting case.

Stan said...

Actually I prefer these types of issues for discussion to the political travesty du jour. But it is overwhelmingly common that an Atheist is also an evolution true believer, and also a self-designated elite Leftist Utopian Quasi-Marxist.

So politics must get its due, especially in today's pagan culture.

Andrew K. said...

Thanks for the answer.

You use the word fact, but addressed none. You only respond to the explanations you disagree with. What's factually wrong?

Stan said...

I'm sorry, your question makes no sense. The Atheist/Evolutionist provided no actual facts, but only presented obvious speculations which he asserted as if they were fact, when they cannot be facts under any meaning of the word, "fact". Speculations are not facts, as I thought explained in some detail.

In terms of "which facts are wrong", that statement in itself makes no sense because if an assertion is wrong, then it is not a fact. So asking about "facts being wrong" has no meaning.

Feel free to try again. It's entirely possible that I cannot help you.

Andrew K. said...

You are correct, the right question should be: which factual claims that support evolutionary theory do you think are false?

The DNA one is a bad example; even if we were to claim that we know nothing about how it came to be, for the sake of discussion, it does not invalidate anything regarding evolution, as every living thing uses DNA and is thus related to each other. So the fact that DNA is everywhere is what matters, and what evolution explains.

I did not know the author of that piece I linked to. I found something more interesting in the form of videos. He has a lot of YouTube videos it seem. This playlist seems interesting:

By the way to be clear, I am not into debating and I was not asking you for 'help'. I don't like that kind of confrontation and I understand evolution very well. But you don't, I am sorry to say.... So I am just curious to get more insights into what/why you reject established science and where your view diverges from science facts.

Stan said...

Are you saying that the evolution of the first cell is not part of evolution?

The reference which you gave, 13 Questions, started from that presumption. I gave reasons why that presupposition is impossible. So if that is not good enough to discredit evolution as a whole, and specifically the fallacy-laden nature of Atheist-Evolutionist rationalization, then what would suffice?

Further, please stop insulting me. It doesn't help your case, whatever that is.

Now. If you have an empirical factoid which categorically proves that evolution is the case, then kindly present that factoid so it can be discussed.

However, you choose not to debate, so that appears to mean that you will merely pass judgment from your superior knowledge viewpoint, right? It will thus be easy for you to merely deny the validity of any case I make, with no contrary input or presentation of evidence of any sort to support your superior knowledge of evolution.

I will discuss any empirical factoid which you believe proves categorically and logically that evolution is true... after you tell me which evolutionary theory you believe to be the case. OK?

Andrew K. said...

The evolution of the first cell, and cell machinery, is the topic of the first video of the series I linked to. You should wacth it.

I am not insulting you. I agree on everything you write here usually. Politics, religion, morality, social justice, etc... but Climate Change and Evolution are not politics, from a scientific point of view. You get them wrong.

Stan said...

I choose not to be sent off on factoid chases. Please give me the exact fact or facts which prove empirically that evolution is absolutely unquestionable. I have already provided the Aristotelian and Baconian standard for scientific/contingent factoids. So those factoids which you choose would of course pass those parameter checks, otherwise they cannot be considered to be actual empirical, knowledge generating statements, and would be correctly considered to be speculation, not objective knowledge.

Steven Satak said...

AGW and Evolution are always going to be political in nature when either a significantly popular ideology rests on them, when people think that feelings count as much as demonstrable fact, or when there is a significant amount of money to be made from hoodwinking the rubes. All of these apply to both concepts.

In fact, they will never be anything BUT political mechanisms.

Computer simulations based on jiggered data work well for people who are interested in large sums of money and maintaining a State of Fear.

Evolution works well for people who don't need no steenking God.

Both are pseudo-religions - that is, no evidence whatsoever will ever convince their adherents that they have mis-placed their faith.

Andrew K. said...

You're shifting the burden to me; I have to prove to you why scientists agree among themselves, but not with tou. Sorry, not interested. Thanks for your time.

Stan said...

Au contraire. You said I don't understand evolution, but you do. That would mean that you have information which I do not. I asked for an empirical fact... which you decline to provide. So you're claim of superior understanding is now questionable, especially since you immediately revert to the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

If evolution is in fact an empirical, contingent factoid, then there must be at least one empirical factoid that demonstrates that. That factoid would be very, very famous, one would think - on the order of E = MC^2.

But there is no such factoid, nor family of such factoids. There is merely speculation, which is dictated (commanded) to be the case. Such actions are not scientific and produce no science, only dogma.

However, if you do come across an evolutionary-empirical finding in which a set of creatures develops new organs or limbs which enable the emergence of a new species, please let me know; I'm very interested.

Steven Satak said...

Andrew K. appears to know just enough to maintain his own assumption of intellectual superiority. In his world, anyway. We've been watching you proceed, Stan, as though he were merely in need of correction, but...

Andrew K. has been jinking every single time you try to associate some statement of his with a real-world fact or reliable source. That is a tell, the sign that this is one more fellow partially living in a personally-crafted reality where opinions don't need facts for support and Truth is decided by repetition, volume and, eventually, the barrel of a gun.

Andrew K. will NEVER accept anything you provide as evidence. Because he is not asking an honest question - he is looking for a way to trip you up with sophistry and, I suspect, is performing for an audience. He will end this by stalking off indignantly. Because: evolution.

But you have been here before, and know all this. Your willingness still to attempt to reach the Andrew K's of the world is remarkable. And admirable. I don't have the patience. And I may be wrong about this. Please correct ME if this is so.

Andrew K. said...

The fact that you're asking for a factoid like E=MC2 is evidence of your lack of understanding. It's like Atheists asking Why doesn't God heal amputees?

You are not interested to listen to experts. You say it's argument from authority to claim they disagree with you. In the same post! Disappointing Stan.

Stan said...

Well, your disappointment just crushes me, doncha know.

To know that asking for an empirical fact is out of order in your understanding of evolution, pretty much sums up you and your expertise in science.

So your self-perceived scientific superiority actually thinks that scientific facts are outside the domain of science? That's why the "science" of evolution does not produce any scientific facts, of course.

Time for you to admit that you are a scientism/evolution groupie and not at all educated in the science of Aristotle, Bacon, Newton, Einstein, or Feynman, all of whom produced scientific factoids which can be checked and rechecked to determine validity.

But not evolution. And not AGW. Nope. They don't need no stinking empirical facts. All they need is true believers who don't care that there are no actual facts to support their unsupportable opinions.

Andrew, why not go your own way in peace. You cannot win an argument when you have no facts.

Or contrarily, go get some fact or facts and come back. We'll discuss whatever you find.

But you can't argue rationally without facts.

Stan said...

Oops, I forgot. You don't argue; you just pass judgment as if you were qualified to do so.

So go your own way, don't provide any facts to address rationally, don't argue. OK? But know that your judgment is without weight or merit, like a fart in the wind.

Stan said...

One last thing to discuss:

How is one to agree with a consensus if the consensus has no actual facts to agree with?

Should one agree that the consensus is just swell, despite lack of a single fact?

Should one be cowed by Appeal to Consensus, when the consensus has no facts at all?

That deserves an explanation. (Unless you don't care about facts in real science)

Andrew K. said...

Do you treat all your allies like shit like that? No wonder nobody replied on your 10 years of blogging. Geez, I am just trying to point you in the right direction so that you don't look foolish on that 1 topic. But YOU don't care about facts in real science.

Good job, you lost yet another reader... but you don't care anyway.

Stan said...

All you had to do was to produce one (1) empirical fact showing the validity of evolution, so that it could be discussed. That would indicate that your "facts in real science" actually exist in evolution.

The reason that you didn't is that there are no (zero) empirical facts showing the validity of evolution.

Yet you claimed superior knowledge of evolution, apparently without knowing that one characteristic of evolution: it is a faux science, based solely upon non-verifiable projection, opinion, and speculation. That is what you term a "real science".

But surely you recognize that non-verifiable claims are speculation, not facts, and that speculation without any facts or hope of facts is not science.

You take that realization pretty hard. Sorry, but the truth is that evolution is a scientistic cult based in Atheism as its premise. But Atheism can't be proven either, and is a cult of self-projected elitism.

Still, if you happen on to a real, empirical, verifiable fact about evolution, feel free to present it here for discussion.

Stan said...

BTW, You apparently think that the intent of this blog is to accumulate readers. That is not the case. The intent of this blog is to analyze all relevant arguments using the deductive techniques of Aristotle and the scientific knowledge requirements of Bacon, etc.

Those analyses are brutal to those who don't want the truth to supersede their worldview in anyway. That scrapes away many who come here to set me straight on why their worldviews need not meet logical knowledge requirements. Objective knowledge requires a logical basis; Narrative-based worldviews do not.

Many prefer to keep the Narrative, and reject the logic.

Those folks are typically not happy with me or this blog. So be it.