Ryan: Who cares about voter fraud, Trump won

Posted by | December 5, 2016 07:47 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics

Republish
Reprint

Pressed by Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” about Trump’s claims of “illegals” voting, Paul Ryan couldn’t care less.

Pelley then asked Ryan about one of Trump’s biggest recent controversies: his statements that he would’ve won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal votes cast for Hillary Clinton. When Ryan said he had no knowledge of illegal voters, Pelley pressed him on whether he’s concerned at all about the veracity of Trump’s unproven claim.

“It doesn’t matter to me. He won the election,” Ryan said. He went on to state that if Trump lives up to his promises and fix the issues he said he would, people will no longer care about what he might have tweeted in the past.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

83 responses to Ryan: Who cares about voter fraud, Trump won

  1. Budda December 5th, 2016 at 07:55

    Ryan can pretend that everything is good and just move on but millions of Americans won’t. Trump lost the popular vote. There was no massive amounts of illegals voting. Trump won’t fix anything. In fact he will be horrible and destroy much of what has been accomplished and he and Republicans will be resisted and held accountable.

  2. Foundryman December 5th, 2016 at 08:42

    Ryan talking about making American lives better while planning to eliminate healthcare for millions, planning to destroy Medicare and Social Security, doing nothing to stop Trump from destroying jobs and businesses with his ridiculous tariff scam and then pretending no one cares is the absolute height of elitism and persecution.
    Anyone who doesn’t think or feel like Ryan/Trump does, means nothing to him, their lives, opinions and welfare are all fair game to be irreparably harmed. We have many things, a representative government isn’t one of them.

  3. Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 09:05

    We should take Trump at his word that millions voted illegally. It makes sense, that would indeed have been enough to tilt the election Trump’s way.

    Let’s have another election.

    • Larry Schmitt December 5th, 2016 at 09:35

      Why should we assume that they all voted for Hillary?

      • Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 15:59

        Exactly!

      • whatthe46 December 5th, 2016 at 16:27

        in WI there were more votes for tRump cast than there were ballots. MI fed. judge orders recount in hole state. i don’t think anyone is assuming they are all for Hillary, but, i’ll bet the majority are.

        • Larry Schmitt December 5th, 2016 at 16:44

          What I meant was, if there were any votes cast illegally, why should it be automatically assumed that they were all illegally cast for Hillary? Couldn’t some, most, or all have been for trump? Which means if they are disqualified, his vote total would be even lower.

          • whatthe46 December 5th, 2016 at 16:58

            i don’t think any were illegally cast for her. i don’t think all the votes were counted. and they should do an audit. i wouldn’t be surprised if MI has the same problem that WI had.

        • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 11:56

          Where did you read that the Trump vote total in Wisconsin was more than the total ballot count? I haven’t seen anything like that reported.

          • whatthe46 December 6th, 2016 at 12:09

            stop reading breitbart and watching fox. otherwise you’ll never read or hear about facts. furthermore, pizzagate is a hoax ok.

    • trees December 5th, 2016 at 10:03

      And if that election doesn’t deliver the result you want….

      Should we then hold another one??

      • Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 10:17

        I just want Trump to believe he won fair and square. He is the one claiming millions of illegal votes.

        • trees December 5th, 2016 at 10:25

          I think he does believe that he actually won.

          He’s been appointing cabinet positions.

          Don’t worry, we’ll have another Presidential election in four years.

          • Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 15:59

            Trump won by a margin of -2.5 million votes or so. If there were a couple million illegal votes, as he claims, then Hillary could have won.

            • trees December 5th, 2016 at 16:22

              We have an electoral college. Trump won the electoral college by a landslide. To think that the election was compromised in OH, MI, PA, FL, WI, IA, etc…

              Is ridiculous.

              Is it time to fit you for a tinfoil hat?

              • whatthe46 December 5th, 2016 at 16:30

                he didn’t win by a landslide fool. but, Hillary did win the popular votes by a landslide and tRump is the biggest loser in the history of our country’s presidential election. facts matter. never my president.

              • Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 19:59

                Trump is the one who brought up millions of illegal votes. Don’t you respect him enough to take action on his claim?

                • trees December 5th, 2016 at 20:07

                  So, is it your argument that millions of illegal votes have been cast??

                  Or, are you advocating that we embrace Trump, and do as he wishes???

                  • Um Cara December 5th, 2016 at 22:14

                    One of the two candidates made a very serious claim of millions of illegal votes cast. He’s the guy who barely won, I commend him for his sporting attitude as he has a great deal to lose.

                    • trees December 6th, 2016 at 10:27

                      He’s the guy who barely won

                      Trump 306

                      Clinton 232

                      Dude, it wasn’t close.

                    • Um Cara December 6th, 2016 at 11:41

                      74 electoral votes is very close in an election with 2 million fraudulent votes.

                    • trees December 6th, 2016 at 12:09

                      Trump alleges the fraudulent votes were cast in blue states, primarily CA, NY, OR, and WA. I think he also believes that fraudulent votes were cast in CO, and NV as well…

                      So, to win this election, in spite of some 2 million fraudulent votes being cast in opposition to him…

                      Is to win in a landslide.

                      Now, if your contention is that he is correct in making this assertion, then what would be the point of recounting those blue states?

                      Look, it’s obvious we need to improve our election process. Voter ID and secure ballot marking, and ballot counting measures need to be implemented.

                      I would expect you to support measures that would bolster the integrity of the electoral process, and would serve to assure all Americans that the elected representatives are, in fact, legitimate.

                    • oldfart December 6th, 2016 at 12:32

                      And what odds would you give, for ANY such measures coming up to (let alone passing) a republican controlled congress to actually correct that ?

                    • Um Cara December 6th, 2016 at 13:24

                      I think 2 million fraudulent votes means we should have a new, fair election. Hopefully Trump will show us the evidence he holds showing how this happened so we can have a fair process.

                      Why is Trump hiding the evidence he used to make this claim?

                    • trees December 6th, 2016 at 13:38

                      There isn’t going to be a “do over” election.

                      I think Trump’s point is this, if the left can make baseless accusations, then he can as well…

                    • Larry Schmitt December 6th, 2016 at 15:00

                      Oh, he certainly can. He has more practice at it than anyone.

                    • trees December 6th, 2016 at 19:27

                      I think he learned it from the liberals….

                      He’s just better at it than they are.

      • Foundryman December 5th, 2016 at 10:33

        Sure, why not? It’s all been a joke to everyone on the right anyway!

      • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 10:49

        And if it did result in another election, would you still vote libertarian ?
        Me thinks thou simply gloateth too much…

  4. trees December 5th, 2016 at 10:13

    Hillary lost.

    The goal of the election was to win the most electoral votes. The campaign was focused on winning states, the electoral count was targeted, not the popular vote.

    If the situation were reversed and Trump had lost the election, but had won the popular vote, how many of you would be calling for recounts, calling for abolishing the electoral college, and proclaiming Trump the actual winner???

    • Foundryman December 5th, 2016 at 10:29

      If it were reversed, we wouldn’t have to. Trump would be suing everything and everybody.

    • Glen December 5th, 2016 at 10:29

      You know that you’ve got a problem when you know that your preferred candidate was supported by fewer Americans, but claim that that’s fine because he won a competition based on a set of arbitrary lines drawn through your country.

      Let me try turning your own argument against you – if Clinton had gotten fewer votes, but won the electoral college votes, would you honestly not have a problem with it?

      EDIT: And if Trump were claiming, in that situation, that there were millions of illegal votes, would you be happy to ignore the claim and go “no recount necessary, the result is legitimate”?

      • trees December 5th, 2016 at 11:02

        Honestly, I would not have a problem with it. I understand the electoral rules.

        • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 11:16

          “I understand the electoral rules.”
          As do all of us Americans…
          Do you also understand that votes WERE tampered with in Wisconsin ?

          • trees December 5th, 2016 at 11:22

            Well, clearly we need strong voter ID laws and a secure uniform voting machine, ballot marking process.

            • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 11:28

              No Sh*t.
              Care to give odds on that actually (if ever) happening ?

              • Jimmy Fleck December 5th, 2016 at 12:19

                You are in favor of voter ID laws?

                • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 12:35

                  Your words implied not mine but,
                  if a Federally mandated ID law, with automatic registration upon turning 18, would stop the BS red state voter restriction laws that are based on pure BS voter fraud (discounting the republicans who were caught doing it), absolutely.
                  Of coarse there’s also gerrymandering to take into consideration, reinstating felons who have served their time, not to mention what a countrywide election mechanism would look like…
                  But really, the odds of that actually happening is slim to none.

                  • Jimmy Fleck December 5th, 2016 at 13:56

                    trees mentioned strong voter ID laws and secure voting machines to which you said “No Sh*t.” It was not clear to me if you meant you agreed with both or just one so that was why I asked. The only reason I would be against automatic registration is that people should be free to not register to vote if they wish. If you were to institute an opt out system vs. the current opt in system of registration then I think that would be a good way to go.

                    Requiring ID to vote is just common sense to me. The ID should be presented for free when you register to vote.

                    • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 14:33

                      I said ID, not voter ID. Such ID would be the federally accepted requirement for voting with and in addition to proving citizenship.
                      None of which BTW would be needed, save from all the BS coming out of red State requirements, restrictions and repression.
                      We already have op out, as close to two thirds didn’t bother to vote.
                      This can also be taken as either they didn’t want to or they couldn’t, meaning they were prevented from voting or that they did vote but their vote was removed as being deemed invalid.
                      My no sh*t was for a secure method of voting. Clearly that has been proven by the actions taken in Wisconsin counties.

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 5th, 2016 at 18:09

                      What actions taken in Wisconsin counties? Everything I have read on the Wisconsin recount through 4 days shows Trump gaining a net of ~30 votes or so.

                    • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 20:43

                      I am not referring to a recount per say, I am referring to the tampered votes in the three counties of Wisconsin, which sparked the recount to begin with.

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 11:32

                      http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-recount-observers-find-voting-machines-broken-seals/

                      The only article I found about broken seals was rated as false by Snopes.

                    • oldfart December 6th, 2016 at 12:09

                      Yeah, but that’s not what I was referring to either. however that and many more stories, from ballots being miss counted, missing ballots “re-discovered”, votes being incorrectly tabulated and reported etc etc.
                      All of it was the basis for the argument for the recount.

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 12:53

                      http://www.snopes.com/three-wisconsin-counties-admit-they-padded-votes-for-trump/ – This story was also rated as false. Is this what you were talking about?

                    • oldfart December 6th, 2016 at 13:11

                      I suppose this is where I ask you if there a bigger point coming from you
                      over your concerns or objections to a recount that will ultimately satisfy
                      many people, including tRump,(by his own admission) over warranted concerns of our voting system being held in question.
                      But if I were to tell you that it probably wont change the outcome of the election (electorally) or that, my wanting a recount has nothing to do with my wishing a change in the election, STILL I’m wondering, would it even matter to you at all ?

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 13:46

                      I guess my question is if the stories that were told to generate the desire for a recount are false then why are we spending the money on a recount? What evidence that is true has been presented to indicate that voting irregularities have occurred?

                    • oldfart December 6th, 2016 at 14:23

                      As long as tRump has a beef with our voting system and claims millions have cheated, a recount ought to be expected and I have no objection to it. I suggest you contact him for his evidence as I am sure you’ll clearly accept his explanation without the bother of
                      fact checking him.
                      There is sufficient evidence of local news stories, I have read be they true, grey or just things that would make anyone with a modem of skepticism think a recount is a good idea in order to clear the fallacy of tRumps claims of voter fraud or maybe, just maybe prove he may be right…win win.

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 14:41

                      So you think California and New York should be recounting their ballots since that is where Trump claims millions have voted illegally? I think Nevada and Colorado are also suspected by Trump as well. Should those places be recounting ballots?

                    • oldfart December 6th, 2016 at 14:50

                      He claimed it to be true. so be it. I got plenty of time.
                      Clearly what I think matters nothing to you.
                      And clearly what he claims doesn’t matter to him or to you either…
                      Need I say more ?

                    • Jimmy Fleck December 6th, 2016 at 15:29

                      I don’t think Trump is right when he claims millions of people voted illegally. I don’t think we need to recount the election to prove him wrong. You just seem to be all over the place on why we do need to recount the states even though any stories you have referenced were shown to be false.

                    • oldfart December 7th, 2016 at 00:18

                      Well why didn’t you just say so from the beginning ? Sheesh.
                      Lets end this on a happy note, I disagree. ;)

            • whatthe46 December 5th, 2016 at 15:24

              it had nothing to do with voter id laws jackass. 5 of the machines had been tampered with the seals were broken.

              • trees December 5th, 2016 at 15:29

                I know you want unverified voters….

                Dead people voting, felons voting, illegals voting…

                If it benefits you, you’re all for it.

      • trees December 5th, 2016 at 11:08

        Yes. I’d abide by the result

        • Glen December 5th, 2016 at 11:45

          I don’t even remotely believe you – if Trump won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote, and claimed that there were many illegal votes, you’d want recounts done to ensure that the result was legitimate.

          The alternative would be contentment with a clearly faulty system.

          Note that I’m Australian. We look at your system and wonder how the hell you can actually consider yourselves a true democracy. And this is coming from a country that doesn’t actually vote at all for their leader (just for their representatives, who then elect a leader). But at least the representative is who we were voting for – we don’t have “electoral college voters” who we don’t know, making the final decision.

          The Electoral College system is massively outdated (it made some sense, back when messages had to be sent by horse, and it was inconceivable to have all ballots sent to a central location within weeks of the election).

          Our federal election system doesn’t run based on states, either – that is, state governments don’t get to decide how the system works in their state, so you don’t have 51 different sets of rules (more, if you count all those bizarre changes in counties, etc), and you don’t have the final vote for leader massively favouring certain states. Not to mention, with our preferential system, a vote for a third party isn’t effectively useless.

          • Jimmy Fleck December 5th, 2016 at 12:18

            “We look at your system and wonder how the hell you can actually consider yourselves a true democracy.” – Simply put – America is not a true Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives to make laws rather than having a vote of the public on them. In electing the President, the founders set up a situation similar to the setup of Congress. There are provisions to keep the larger populous states from over-riding the smaller states and dominating the federal election for president. When 30 states say they want one person for president and 20 say they want someone else then which group of states should get what they want? The president is not elected on the popular vote – the president is elected by the states and the states individually get to decide how to award their electoral votes. Currently 48 states are winner take all.

            • trees December 5th, 2016 at 12:53

              Jimmy, that was an excellent explanation.

            • Glen December 5th, 2016 at 13:29

              You’ve slightly misunderstood my comment. When I say “true democracy”, I don’t mean “100% democracy”, but “operating on democratic principles”. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, but it’s also a true democracy.

              The appropriate term in this context is “Representative democracy” – it’s what all modern democracies have, where people vote for representatives, who then vote for things on their behalf (or rather, in their best interest – a subtle but important distinction).

              In your country, much of what happens does not follow basic democratic principles. We’ll set aside “three fifths of all other persons”. We’ll set aside gerrymandering, and voter ID laws being used to prevent people of certain political persuasions from voting. We’ll set aside your electoral system fundamentally operating on a “money = speech” basis. We’ll set aside multiple American territories not having any right to real representation or any say whatsoever in their president. We’ll even set aside the fact that felons, even after having served their time, and reintegrating back into the community, don’t get to vote in many states.

              Even with all of that set aside, though, the amount of absurdity in your system is tremendous. A voter in New Hampshire has far more say in who becomes president than a voter in Pennsylvania. And because of winner-takes-all and plurality voting, a voter in California is wasting their vote if they vote for the Republican, while a voter in Texas is wasting their vote if they vote for the Democrat… and a vote for a third party is completely wasted, everywhere. Except that third party candidates can literally affect the election, thanks to “splitting the vote”.

              Your system is set up in such a way that a state would literally be able to assign their electoral votes towards the presidency on the basis of who the state government preferred (rather than the people’s choice), and even with the current way that states assign electors, the presidency could conceivably be won with something like 22% of the popular vote (even less, if the numbers that turn out to the less populous states are particularly low – and note that we’re ignoring third party votes).

              If the popular vote by state were rescaled to mimic the electoral college votes, Clinton would still be ahead.

              In your system, when 47.5% of voters in a state vote for Trump, 100% of their electoral college votes go to Trump. That’s not a representative democracy (“constitutional republic”) in any sense whatsoever.

              No, what you have is simply a completely screwed up system, which probably explains why your country is so screwed up.

          • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 12:18

            “I don’t even remotely believe you”
            As well you shouldn’t. Trees will tell you that he didn’t vote for tRump, he’s a libertarian (AKA disgruntled republican)
            But he also (and quite obviously) enjoys being an equal opportunity irritant.
            You are right to point out the obvious Glenn, our system is outdated. It is also rigged. Capitalism overrules Democracy.

          • trees December 5th, 2016 at 13:17

            I don’t even remotely believe you – if Trump won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote, and claimed that there were many illegal votes, you’d want recounts done to ensure that the result was legitimate.

            A recount is a recount, not an investigation into fraud. In a recount, you recount ballots. You don’t, “divine voter intent”, or determine voter eligibility. You count votes. The only purpose for a recount is to tally, and so, a recount is reserved for close elections.

            The Green Party seeks to invalidate the election results.

            Jill Stein’s motivation is clear.

            As such, the demands to recount, by those on the left, are comical.

            • Glen December 5th, 2016 at 13:35

              A recount can also examine the relationships between rolls and ballots, etc. Considering that a large proportion of the recount involves examining the discarded ballots and the accepted provisional ballots, etc – which is where many ballots from “illegal voters” would end up, anyway – is part of how one would examine the validity of the numbers.

              And surely a recount would be part of any investigation into possible falsification or illegal voting patterns?

              It seems to me that both the left and the right are arguing that the election was deeply flawed. Shouldn’t those who suspect foul play want to work together to have the entire election scrutinised? If Trump’s claims are true, surely he should have petitioned for the recounts to be expanded into a full-fledged investigation?

            • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 14:41

              “The Green Party seeks to invalidate the election results.
              Jill Stein’s motivation is clear.
              As such, the demands to recount, by those on the left, are comical.”

              …Ripped from the pages of Breitbart and other rightwing news outlets…
              and as such, the protestations of the right are predicable as well as
              humorous.

        • Lyndia December 5th, 2016 at 16:37

          You are a lie, and the truth is not in you.

        • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:43

          Things more plausible:
          1. All firearm deaths in America are false flags
          2. A duck won the Nobel for genetics.
          3. Pig test-pilots
          4. The earth is flat
          5. The earth is 6000 years old
          6 The day of the week got its name from Wednesday Addams.
          7. Flouride is a commie plot.

    • oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 10:35

      Hypothetically speaking…
      For someone who claims “he wasn’t my guy”
      Who freakin cares ?

  5. trees December 5th, 2016 at 10:21

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f951b9bc67d7a0c22faeced1d0d6851b2bd236067400b1bf7786ef77aeecfa1.gif

    Ladies and Gentlemen….

    The real winner of the Presidential election….

  6. oldfart December 5th, 2016 at 10:55

    Nothing to see here, move along…
    Says the man in a win win situation.

  7. robert December 5th, 2016 at 12:29

    It’s like asking anyone why they are running with a bag of money in their hands.

    Your never going to get the truth

Leave a Reply