A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation...

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

Because 19 votes can swing an election.

Because only 1 person tied to DNC is a soulless, void-of-ethics, sellout shill.

Oh wait. That's just the Chairbuffalo that lost her CNN gig today.


Hmmm - nope, my bad. Totally forgot about the convicted felon that visited Obama 342 times.

It's Trickle-down corruption. But you know that.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Because only 1 person tied to DNC is a soulless, void-of-ethics, sellout shill.

Oh wait. That's just the Chairbuffalo that lost her CNN gig today.


Hmmm - nope, my bad. Totally forgot about the convicted felon that visited Obama 342 times.

It's Trickle-down corruption. But you know that.

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the 19 votes that could have swung the election for Hillary Clinton. Pardon me.

[Pants II]

The democrats have a huge advantage in poll rigging due to the open borders/mass immigration.

To try and show that Republicans are fixing the votes equal to Democrats just proves how totally clueless you are. Brits really should mind their manners concerning our elections.

You're wrong and no amount of copypasta from msm sources will make you right.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Pants II

The democrats have a huge advantage in poll rigging due to the open borders/mass immigration.

To try and show that Republicans are fixing the votes equal to Democrats just proves how totally clueless you are. Brits really should mind their manners concerning our elections.

You're wrong and no amount of copypasta from msm sources will make you right.

No one accused anyone of "fixing" elections. You should know the difference between tampering with elections and attempts to stop people from voting.

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

The party that raises taxes more presumably values the taxpayer opinion less. You might want to come over to the G.O.P.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

No one accused anyone of "fixing" elections. You should know the difference between tampering with elections and attempts to stop people from voting.

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

Here is what I was telling you about with regard to Gore and Lieberman trying to block the votes of some of our overseas military troops from being counted back in the 2000 election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-votes.html

[Rudeboyelvis]

Clinton campaign in full panic mode - putting up last minute 6-figure ad buys in CO, VA, NM, and MI.

The pulled out of CO and VA months ago, and have never never run ads in NM and MI.

Uh Oh.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is what I was telling you about with regard to Gore and Lieberman trying to block the votes of some of our overseas military troops from being counted back in the 2000 election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-votes.html

My understanding of what occurred is that Gore/Lieberman were not attempting to block legitimate votes from overseas military troops (over 1,400 absentee ballots from overseas were chucked without opening the envelopes), but requesting that the Florida Secretary of State comply with the previously accepted legal standard of rejecting ballots that did not include a postmark. (To assert that Gore/Lieberman attempted to disenfranchise military personnel stationed abroad is to presume that all the UNOPENED ballots were for Bush).

Gore/Lieberman were well within their right to demand that the FL Secretary of State enforce a voting LAW. Alas, it was a public relations bungle.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

My understanding of what occurred is that Gore/Lieberman were not attempting to block legitimate votes from overseas military troops (over 1,400 absentee ballots from overseas were chucked without opening the envelopes), but requesting that the Florida Secretary of State comply with the previously accepted legal standard of rejecting ballots that did not include a postmark. (To assert that Gore/Lieberman attempted to disenfranchise military personnel stationed abroad is to presume that all the UNOPENED ballots were for Bush).

Gore/Lieberman were well within their right to demand that the FL Secretary of State enforce a voting LAW. Alas, it was a public relations bungle.

Yes, you are correct. In terms of the letter of the law they were entitled to ask for those ballots to be disqualified. But considering all that our military troops do for the country, to try to disqualify their votes on a technicality is pretty low, especially when Gore and Lieberman kept on saying that they simply wanted all the ballots counted. That was their talking point. They kept saying that all they wanted was for everyone's votes to be counted. In reality, they only wanted more ballots to be counted if those ballots were ballots that were likely to help them. They only wanted recounts in precincts that tend to vote democrat. Since military troops lean republican, they didn't want those votes counted if there was any legal way to keep those votes from being counted.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about the 19 votes that could have swung the election for Hillary Clinton. Pardon me.

So, we shouldn't do anything about it, and then enable many hundreds of people to do the same thing, so that eventually we'd have 10,000 dead people registered?? At what point should we get concerned?

And would you assert that assessing right and wrong on a statistical count is somehow enlightened? What happened to the rationale of "one death is too many"? Or does that sort of logic just apply to the clubbing of baby seals and the like (exempting of course abortion which is just dandy)?

The workings of the liberal mind are as sickening as they are convoluted.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So, we shouldn't do anything about it, and then enable many hundreds of people to do the same thing, so that eventually we'd have 10,000 dead people registered?? At what point should we get concerned?

And would you assert that assessing right and wrong on a statistical count is somehow enlightened? What happened to the rationale of "one death is too many"? Or does that sort of logic just apply to the clubbing of baby seals and the like (exempting of course abortion which is just dandy)?

The workings of the liberal mind are as sickening as they are convoluted.

Joey do you think only one party is doing this? Just curious

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Joey do you think only one party is doing this? Just curious

No, Jim, I wouldn't assert that at all. If I had my way there would be no voter fraud at all, and I am sure many agree. There is a vast difference between being disappointed in the outcome of an election, but knowing the will of the people was served, versus having fraud distort the results.

No system is perfect, and political people of either (or any) stripe will always scheme.

I just would not give up and rely on "whew... I guess nobody cheated enough to swing the election..."

We need actual ID, automation, and verifiable equipment. In 2016, with the computers we have, it is inexcusable for dead people, or illegal aliens, or convicted felons, to be able to vote, and for anybody to be able to vote more than once.

This is a crime that we are allowing to continue. It could be 99% wiped out if there was political will to do so.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No, Jim, I wouldn't assert that at all. If I had my way there would be no voter fraud at all, and I am sure many agree. There is a vast difference between being disappointed in the outcome of an election, but knowing the will of the people was served, versus having fraud distort the results.

No system is perfect, and political people of either (or any) stripe will always scheme.

I just would not give up and rely on "whew... I guess nobody cheated enough to swing the election..."

We need actual ID, automation, and verifiable equipment. In 2016, with the computers we have, it is inexcusable for dead people, or illegal aliens, or convicted felons, to be able to vote, and for anybody to be able to vote more than once.

This is a crime that we are allowing to continue. It could be 99% wiped out if there was political will to do so.

Agree 100%

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by joeydb

No system is perfect, and political people of either (or any) stripe will always scheme.

This is precisely my point.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

This is precisely my point.

With regard to your question as to whether voter fraud could actually sway the election, it could very conceivably sway a close election. How could this happen? Very easily. What if it comes down to 1 or 2 states that are very close. Let's say that Trump ends up winning most of the states that he needs to like Florida, Ohio, etc. That would make it a very close election. Then if Hillary ends up winning a state like Virginia or Pennsylvania by just 2,000 votes or something like that (and there was a lot of fraud in one of those states), that could make the difference in the election.

There are plenty of states where there are well over 100,000 illegal aliens. If you have a state where there are 100,000 illegal aliens, that would mean you could expect around 5,000 of them to vote, if the estimates are right. Illegal aliens typically vote around 80% democrat and 20% republican. So those 5,000 illegal votes would net the democrat 3,000 votes (the democrat would get 4,000 and the republican would get 1,000). What if Hillary wins one of those states such as Pennsylvania, Minnesota or Virginia by only 2,000 votes? That alone could conceivably win her the election.

[Pants II]

They are shredding at world record pace.

Deleting, shredding, smashing, etc.

[Pants II]

Check the breaking news for voter fraud. It's happening, folks.