Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump’s Pick for Wisconsin Senator Suggests Nursing Home Residents Shouldn’t Vote


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Harte said:

He didn't set out to prove any fraud. It's a report.

If they weren't looking to prove the big fraud that "stole" the election from Don the Con, then what was their goal?

3 hours ago, Harte said:

This is a reason to strengthen the laws regarding votes cast by certain nursing home patients.

Because Gableman can't effectively count voters in nursing homes?

Because Gableman was able to harass 6 or 7 old people on camera?

Of course, it's really all because Trump said there was fraud. All else is frippery and window dressing before the unvarnished truth laid out to you by the con man.

3 hours ago, Harte said:

In fact, the law was set aside, opening the door to potential fraudulent votes on a large scale.

Give me the actual fraud today, and you can keep your potential fraud tomorrow.

3 hours ago, Harte said:

I guess you're comfortable with that.

Nah, but I haven't seen any evidence which leads me to conclude that it either did or potentially happened. You haven't either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You know, though, Gableman might be onto something. The 65+ category in Wisconsin did lean Republican 53-47 (according to exit polling).

Looks like the GOP was able to harvest more nursing home ballots. Silly, of course, and not really evidence of such. But it's about as much as Gableman brought to the table.

 

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

 

DP.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
EDIT: double post, please delete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

If they weren't looking to prove the big fraud that "stole" the election from Don the Con, then what was their goal?

Because Gableman can't effectively count voters in nursing homes?

Because Gableman was able to harass 6 or 7 old people on camera?

Of course, it's really all because Trump said there was fraud. All else is frippery and window dressing before the unvarnished truth laid out to you by the con man.

Give me the actual fraud today, and you can keep your potential fraud tomorrow.

Nah, but I haven't seen any evidence which leads me to conclude that it either did or potentially happened. You haven't either.

I linked the report.
If you read it, you'll see he was investigating what happened.
He clearly states that his report in no way was meant to decertify the election, and that whatever the findings the means to do so were unobtainable.
After all, who would you prosecute in a case where the Wisconsin Election Commission ignored the law?
Your "harassment" was testimony before the legislature from the people involved whose votes were illegally recorded, under the full auspice of the WEC.

A poster asked for evidence that the votes from nursing homes may have been manipulated. I provided what the poster asked for.
Not my problem if it sticks in your craw.
Harte

Edited by Harte
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DP

Edited by Harte
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 5:24 PM, lightly said:

Good to see you @Harte  :)    . . I tend to give credence to most anything you have to say, and I read the link….but it puzzles me why the link refers to it as “Potential Widespread Vote Fraud in Nursing Homes”          ?

Because Gableman was only looking into the possibility. He didn't investigate the votes themselves in every Wisconsin nursing home.
He found that the possibility was wide open because the law concerning how vulnerable senior's votes are to be collected was set aside.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Harte said:

He didn't set out to prove any fraud. It's a report.
This is a reason to strengthen the laws regarding votes cast by certain nursing home patients.
In fact, the law was set aside, opening the door to potential fraudulent votes on a large scale.
I guess you're comfortable with that.


Harte

I can see where there could be potential wide spread voter fraud with it , but do we think there was? I mean how many nursing homes would this have to involve ? If someone looked at it , then it would be obvious. There have been known rather isolated instances from both sides, and god only knows how many elections that has gone on for. But like in the other thread you replied to me that he(Trump),  had stole it back. So i guess that means you also believe  it was stolen. But why? Do you see widespread fraud that is enough to steal an election? I would think that it would be quite noticeable if something that widespread happened, and to be able to organize that would have to be monumental , yet with all the scrutiny that went on , they all said it didn't happen , even on Trump's teams and the Republican side. Yet people keep believing it happened . If Trump says it happened because he don't like to lose , does that mean it happened? Why would everyone seem to think that only the Dems are capable of this and no one else ? Because Trump accuses them? As far as i understand , Trump was told it didn't happen early on , even by his own people , yet he continued to spout it out and still does to this day. 

Edited by Razman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harte said:

I linked the report.

Not really, in #70 you linked a news story that contains a dead link to the report. But it's fine. I can find the report. It's here:

Gableman March 1 report (madison.com)

4 hours ago, Harte said:

If you read it, you'll see he was investigating what happened.

Not very well, if he only landed potential fraud.

Ah, yes, the "irregularities" and "illegalities" of the election. With tips solicited to a website "wifraud.com".

And you've decided he wasn't trying to prove fraud?

I guess you didn't read it.

4 hours ago, Harte said:

He clearly states that his report in no way was meant to decertify the election, and that whatever the findings the means to do so were unobtainable.

Uh, oh, looks like you didn't read it!

And, you apparently didn't listen to Gableman himself.

Gableman stated, in testimony, after the release of his report:

Quote

At this point, I believe the Legislature oughta take a very hard look at the option of decertification of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election

Gableman states in his report (Appendix II: Decertification and the Electoral Count Act):

Quote

 And under those two documents, it is clear that the Wisconsin Legislature could lawfully take steps to decertify electors in any Presidential election, for example in light of violations of state election law that did or likely could have affected the outcome of the election.

And then lays out a (presumably incorrect, given his other missteps) chain of legal logic whereby to do so.

I assume you'll correct your statements in the future. I know it's tough, when the MacIver Institute told you the wrong thing. But I'm happy to help you learn!

4 hours ago, Harte said:

After all, who would you prosecute in a case where the Wisconsin Election Commission ignored the law?

Well, you know, maybe the Wisconsin Election Commission? People who carried out the actual widespread voter fraud that you've never bothered to show in favor of the dog-and-pony potential fraud?

Easy. Off the top of my head.

Even Gableman could have figured that out. Even you could have figured that out.

4 hours ago, Harte said:

Your "harassment" was testimony before the legislature from the people involved whose votes were illegally recorded, under the full auspice of the WEC.

Well, actually, no.

6 of the 8 were eligible to vote, and thus their votes were not illegally recorded. Do I think a 104-year-old is probably a voter who knows what is going on? Nah. But, I'm not the one who decertifies them. Neither are you. But, of course, we also don't know who they voted for. In my experience, elderly people who don't know what's going on tended to vote for Trump, in 2020. That's anecdotal, of course, just like Gableman's "testimonials". Your mileage may vary, of course.

2 of the 8 were not eligible to vote. Gableman's report does say they voted, but given his inaccuracies noted in how he arrived at his nebulous and inaccurate "100% voting at nursing homes in multiple counties" factoid, I find his unvetted and unevidenced words to be worth the same amount as the skunk that died under the overpass last week.

You might not like it, but making someone ineligible to vote is a legal process. It's not done by a Gableman interview, or family members. I might think that your clear susceptibility to this political misinformation makes you incompetent to vote. But that's not my call.

[SIDEBAR: 100% voting rate in nursing homes, Gableman the innumerate mathman

Mikey G provides the class with this table (on which, for those of an ironic bent, Mikey clearly didn't vet his spelling). He doesn't provide any information as to what nursing homes he examined, or supporting numbers, etc. Just this big whopping table with scary red 100% text.

image.thumb.png.b70e6b81b1a0ca570af1d9bcf693aad1.png

Unfortunately for Mikey, somebody bothered to check his numbers, and found a different story. Basically, only a handful of nursing homes (or assistive medical facilities) had the scary "100% turnout".

Quote

In only one of Dane County’s 18 state-licensed nursing homes was turnout 100%: Nazareth Health and Rehab Center in Stoughton, where all 12 people listed as registered in the poll book had their ballots tallied. Turnout among all the others ranged from 42% to 91%.

Gableman’s turnout numbers for nursing homes in the other four counties are proving equally false.

Using data requested through the Wisconsin Election Commission’s Badger Voters service — which allows political campaigns and the public to obtain lists of registered voters and voting activity by address — the State Journal calculated voter turnout at all 52 state-licensed nursing homes in Brown, Kenosha, Milwaukee and Racine counties in which people were recorded as having voted in the Nov. 3, 2020, election.

It could find only one where turnout in 2020 was 100%: the Brown County Community Treatment Center — Bayshore Village in Green Bay, where eight of eight registered voters voted.

Otherwise, turnout at the nursing homes ranged from 20% to 94%. Average turnout for Milwaukee County nursing homes was 80%, as it was for Brown. Turnout in Kenosha facilities was 72% and in Racine it was 73%.

Such levels are not out of line with what the state as a whole saw in 2020, when turnout was 72%, according to the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, and nearly 10% more people cast ballots than in 2016.

What’s more, the nursing home figures overstate turnout in the facilities because they reflect the number of votes cast divided by the number of registered voters, not the larger voting-age population, which the Elections Commission uses as the denominator in its turnout calculations. It’s also long been true that senior citizens are more likely to vote than the population at large.

Nor was the 2020 turnout at nursing homes in Brown, Kenosha, Milwaukee and Racine counties much different from that in 2016. In fact, three homes in those areas saw 100% turnout, with 41 of 41 registered voters casting ballots in an election won by former President Donald Trump, who praised Gableman at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort on Tuesday and whose baseless claims of a stolen election Gableman has also taken up.
 

Michael Gableman's numbers on nursing home voting proven wrong again (madison.com)

END SIDEBAR]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

A poster asked for evidence that the votes from nursing homes may have been manipulated. I provided what the poster asked for.

Well, they believe post #65 asked for evidence that "thousands" of votes were harvested from nursing homes, as post #2 suggested.

I don't think you've provided what the poster asked for.

In fact, you've provided information that's a mix of correct and false, which doesn't provide specific evidence of large-scale voter fraud. And, you're clearly unfamiliar with some of the basic facts of the report and statements made by Gableman. 

Sad.

4 hours ago, Harte said:

Not my problem if it sticks in your craw.

Alas, people spouting untruths tends to stick in my craw. It's a rough condition, particularly online. But, I find a little joy in helping people like you learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i've  read , it seemed that most all of Gableman's claims have been debunked , even his Zuckerberg donations claims. Even Gableman himself said that he didn't find anything earth shattering in the report. " ““Accordingly, at this stage, the recommendations included in this Report largely fall within the umbrella of enabling oversight and transparency of our election systems. It draws no conclusions about specific, unauthorized outside interference or insider threats to machine voting, but it does provide numerous examples of security gaps that tend to enable bad actors to operate in the shadows. Absent access to these systems, it would not be unfair for any citizens to conclude the worst, however. It is a commonplace in the law for it to assume the worst about the nature and impact of hidden or destroyed evidence, and it is up to government to justify its actions to the people, not the other way around,” Gableman wrote. “A few additional recommendations in this Report fall within the second umbrella— maintaining political accountability. While it is clear that the outside groups and the bureaucrats in Madison who run our elections have not been accountable to the voters or the state government, there are some measures that can help return our State to a functional democracy.”

                                                                                                 The underlined pretty much says it ,  I mean ,at one point he says ---"It is commonplace in the law for it to assume the worst about the nature and impact of hidden or destroyed evidence " - But what evidence is he talking about?

                                                                                                                             A lot of his claims were saying the Zuckergerg grants went to 5 specific places , but ------

 

The Center for Tech and Civic Life’s $8,800,000 Zuckerberg Plan Grant with the Cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay (the Zuckerberg 5 Cities) violates Wisconsin law prohibiting election bribery." 

Those grants are what Gableman was referring to on the Carlson show. And that’s what Gableman’s staff pointed us to when we asked for backup to the claim.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life, a national nonprofit organization, used $350 million in donations from Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, to issue grants aimed at helping local governments conduct safe elections during the COVID pandemic. 

The group told PolitiFact Wisconsin it issued nearly 2,500 grants nationwide and that every eligible office that applied received at least some money. More than half went to election offices that serve less than 25,000 registered voters.

The money arrived as local election budgets were drained by spending on election workers, postage and printing for the increasing number of voters who wanted to vote by mail.

All told, $10 million in grants went to more than 200 communities across Wisconsin, including many in Republican areas. So, Gableman is wrong to suggest the money went only to five. 

 

Gableman testifies on results of Wisconsin 2020 election report (fox11online.com)

PolitiFact | Courts have repeatedly upheld grants Gableman says amount to 'massive election bribery'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like Gableman was trying to twist the words and information into his narrative IMO. In any case , it was a time when Republicans were looking for every pin and needle they could find in the box all across the nation. And as far as i understand , they couldn't find anything of consequence. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 6:35 PM, Razman said:

I can see where there could be potential wide spread voter fraud with it , but do we think there was? I mean how many nursing homes would this have to involve ? If someone looked at it , then it would be obvious. There have been known rather isolated instances from both sides, and god only knows how many elections that has gone on for. But like in the other thread you replied to me that he(Trump),  had stole it back. So i guess that means you also believe  it was stolen. But why? Do you see widespread fraud that is enough to steal an election? I would think that it would be quite noticeable if something that widespread happened, and to be able to organize that would have to be monumental , yet with all the scrutiny that went on , they all said it didn't happen , even on Trump's teams and the Republican side. Yet people keep believing it happened . If Trump says it happened because he don't like to lose , does that mean it happened? Why would everyone seem to think that only the Dems are capable of this and no one else ? Because Trump accuses them? As far as i understand , Trump was told it didn't happen early on , even by his own people , yet he continued to spout it out and still does to this day. 

It could potentially involve every nursing home.
How many votes, I couldn't say.
Might be in the report.
But it is symptomatic of the way Dems changed the rules of voting across a fairly wide swath of states, often going against their own state constitution.
You see enough of this, you start to think that there is no validity to the vote, whether you're right or not.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harte said:

It could potentially involve every nursing home.
How many votes, I couldn't say.
Might be in the report.
But it is symptomatic of the way Dems changed the rules of voting across a fairly wide swath of states, often going against their own state constitution.
You see enough of this, you start to think that there is no validity to the vote, whether you're right or not.

Harte

Yup and you consider the fact that bureaucrats often fight any kind of actual investigation into the security and integrity of the vote, it makes you wonder.

The nursing home issue isn't new.   I've heard about it for years... well before Trump.  In fact, here is an article talking about elections in Chicago and discovered nursing home fraud back in the 80s.  Yes, it is hertigage foundation but that does not change the facts of the article.

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: 100,000 Stolen Votes in Chicago | The Heritage Foundation

In its reporting, the Chicago Tribune discovered that the supposed home address of three voters in the 17th Precinct of the 27th Ward was a vacant lot. The paper also discovered that votes had been cast for seven residents of a nursing home who denied having voted-their signatures on the ballot applications were all forgeries. In fact, one resident had no fingers or thumbs with which to write a sig­nature.[12] The fraud was so blatant that the resident without fingers or thumbs "was counted as having voted twice by the end of the day."[13] Not surpris­ingly, Stevenson easily won the 17th Precinct, by a margin of 282 to 30.[14]"...

Preying on the Disabled and Elderly. The evi­dence showed that the conspirators evaded detec­tion by casting ballots for those persons who would be the most unlikely to challenge the theft of their franchise. In the Seventh Circuit's Olinger decision, for example, the court described how the votes of elderly and handicapped voters who lived at a residential facility were stolen in a special absen­tee election:

Hicks [the Democratic Party precinct captain] told the election judges that the residents of Monroe Pavillion were "crazy." He instructed appellant and the other election judges to ignore the wishes of the residents. Instead, the election judges were told to "punch 10" on the computerized ballot for every resident. Punching 10 on the ballot resulted in a vote for each of the Democratic candidates on the ballot. On October 30, 1982, appellant and the other election judges, with Hicks in attendance, conducted the special election at Monroe Pavillion. In over two hours of voting, approximately 52 residents voted. Appellant and the other election judges cast nearly all of those votes for the straight Democratic Party ticket by punching 10.[28]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this massive fraud was found and prosecuted. Makes you think.

Amusingly enough, too, the person yowling the most about fraud and asking for recounts was the person for whom the fraud was being conducted. Makes you think even more!

Well, to be accurate, things never make a certain segment of cultists here think, but it would be nice if they did.

Yes, this article is quite a good example of a number of things I've said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

the person for whom the fraud was being conducted.

Of course you have a source for that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Of course you have a source for that.

Of course I do! From the article above.

Quote

After the results were in, Stevenson immediately filed suit, contesting the results of the election and asking for a recount. He conceded defeat only when the Illinois Supreme Court two months later rejected his request for a statewide recount.[8]

Stevenson claimed there was evidence of voter fraud in areas of the state outside of Chicago.

Now, you can say "Thanks for spoon feeding me information from the article that was just posted", but I'll settle for "Thanks".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Now, you can say "Thanks for spoon feeding me information from the article that was just posted", but I'll settle for "Thanks".

That is not fraud.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Michelle said:

That is not fraud.

Of course spoon feeding you information isn't fraud. I'm being honest here!

Well, yeah. I never said the yowling was fraud. I said the yowling was funny given that the fraud was conducted for the yowlers benefit. You'll want to read the article to see a description of the fraud.

(Reading is where you see those funny symbols and interpret them into words, since you seem to be having trouble with the concept and execution.)

What I said was "Amusingly enough, too, the person yowling the most about fraud and asking for recounts was the person for whom the fraud was being conducted."

Stevenson was the person for whom the fraud described in the article was being conducted. The article describes quite a lot of fraud that was found, prosecuted, and the fraudsters convicted thereof.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

(Reading is where you see those funny symbols and interpret them into words, since you seem to be having trouble with the concept and execution.)

Goodbye

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Goodbye

Alas, you came, you saw, you trolled, you failed to conquer.

Better luck next time. Try reading the article first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Harte said:

It could potentially involve every nursing home.
How many votes, I couldn't say.
Might be in the report.
But it is symptomatic of the way Dems changed the rules of voting across a fairly wide swath of states, often going against their own state constitution.
You see enough of this, you start to think that there is no validity to the vote, whether you're right or not.

Harte

Yea , it seems depending on where you look , the numbers change about the report ( those involving the nursing homes) , but its like trying to unravel a boatload of stuff , enough to give a guy a headache. As far as i can tell though , Gableman refers to the WEC deciding not to send out the deputies because of the pandemic and nursing home rules at the time. Though the WEC is made up of 3 Dems and 3 Repubs , and apparently (according to a Factcheck.org article) , they voted 6-0 for the change , and 5-1 to keep it for the general election , so i'm not really sure how all that worked out the way it did. Though the whole thing sounds rather complicated depending on how one looks at it.

Unraveling Trump's Unsubstantiated Claim of 'Crooked' Nursing Home Votes - FactCheck.org

Edited by Razman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Razman said:

Yea , it seems depending on where you look , the numbers change about the report ( those involving the nursing homes) , but its like trying to unravel a boatload of stuff , enough to give a guy a headache. As far as i can tell though , Gableman refers to the WEC deciding not to send out the deputies because of the pandemic and nursing home rules at the time. Though the WEC is made up of 3 Dems and 3 Repubs , and apparently (according to a Factcheck.org article) , they voted 6-0 for the change , and 5-1 to keep it for the general election , so i'm not really sure how all that worked out the way it did. Though the whole thing sounds rather complicated depending on how one looks at it.

Unraveling Trump's Unsubstantiated Claim of 'Crooked' Nursing Home Votes - FactCheck.org

There are also examples of extending voting in violation of state constitution and implementing drop boxes also in violation of state constitutions, or at least allowing the use of drop boxes in a manner inconsistent with the state constitution, accepting unsigned mail in ballots, as well as not allowing partisan examination of the ballots during vote counts.
The point is, who knows what was going on? If you operate this way, there will be people that suspect some nefarious hanky panky with the vote. There's literally no way to check whether they are right, no real way to verify the votes. To act as if it is shocking that people would question the vote is really transparently hypocritical.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harte said:

There are also examples of extending voting in violation of state constitution and implementing drop boxes also in violation of state constitutions, or at least allowing the use of drop boxes in a manner inconsistent with the state constitution, accepting unsigned mail in ballots, as well as not allowing partisan examination of the ballots during vote counts.
The point is, who knows what was going on? If you operate this way, there will be people that suspect some nefarious hanky panky with the vote. There's literally no way to check whether they are right, no real way to verify the votes. To act as if it is shocking that people would question the vote is really transparently hypocritical.

Harte

Yea , i heard or read about some of these things , but i'm not really sure what all went down with them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2024 at 2:09 PM, lightly said:

Oh?   and what percentage of people in nursing homes,etc. fit your description?   I’ve seen such places,,,had loved ones in such places,, the vast majority were/are capable of understanding .   Most people in nursing homes and medical care centers and hospice facilities, etc.  are there because they are not PHYSICALLY able to care for themselves sufficiently.     And how commonplace is the practice of “vote harvesting” in such places?       If it’s so easy to do…why is it only done by THE LEFT?    Aren’t ‘RIGHTYS’  smart enough to cheat?  :lol:    You think staff at these facilities would allow such things to go on…unchecked?      Nope..not buying it.

Most? My wife works in a nursing home. Most of those people have no idea what year it is. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Razman said:

Yea , i heard or read about some of these things , but i'm not really sure what all went down with them .

The point is, we can't know what went down.
That's not a good situation for confidence in the vote.

Harte

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Harte said:

The point is, we can't know what went down.
That's not a good situation for confidence in the vote.

Harte

Perhaps , but without knowing , at the same time , how can we say or assume it was stolen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.