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%

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.

This is precisely my point.

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

They are shredding at world record pace.

Deleting, shredding, smashing, etc.

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

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/po...ion_fraud.html

"Earn up to $130 working the polls on election day"

Weird. As of today, POTUS, FLOTUS, and Fauxcahontas (both personal and Senate accts) have all unfollowed @HillaryClinton on Twitter.

You are right that most illegal aliens don't vote. The reason you gave is probably correct. They probably don't want to risk getting in trouble. That is probably why around 95% of them do not vote. But approximately the other 5% do vote. Why do they risk it? I would say for two reasons. The first would be the same reason they risk getting in trouble for all the other crimes they commit. There are simply a lot of people out there (of all races) who do things that could get them in a lot of trouble, even though they have very little to gain. We hear of guys worth over $100 million who cheat on their taxes. They have so much to lose. They risk going to jail to save a little bit of money, even tough they don't need the money. Then you have successful guys like OJ who actually murder someone and risk going to jail for life. Most of these people are probably sociopaths. Some studies show that sociopaths make up about 4% of the population. They have poor impulse control and will even commit crimes where they are practically assured of getting caught. They don't really worry about the consequences of their actions. They live for the moment.

The second reason a small percentage (around 5%) of illegal aliens vote is because there are some of them out there that know how lax our laws are. They know they are extremely unlikely to get caught, and even if they do get caught, they know that there will probably be no consequences. Look at what the article said. It said that they caught 300 illegal aliens registered to vote in Virginia, half of whom actually did vote. This info was given to the Justice Department. What did they do? Nothing! From the article:

Von Spakovsky said the Obama administration’s Department of Justice is turning a blind eye to the problem – by design.

The elections expert has personal experience with the federal government’s lax oversight.

He served on a Virginia county elections board that found nearly 300 non-citizens registered to vote in that county alone.

“We took them off the list. About half of them had actually illegally voted,” Von Spakovsky told Wisconsin Watchdog on the Vicki McKenna Show earlier this week. “We sent that information to the Obama administration, to the Justice Department, because it’s a felony what (the non-citizens) were doing under federal law.”

“They had no interest in it.”

The Justice Department, in fact, has targeted states that have attempted to purge ineligible voters from their registration rolls, citing the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. And the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has refused to share its immigration database with election officials.

http://watchdog.org/260524/illegal-i...2016-election/

Not that this matters (he's been so woefully incorrect about Trump it's laughable) but even Nate Sliver just acknowledged Florida leaning red.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/.../florida/#plus

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.

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

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.

All recent tweets have been deleted as well.

"HRC “looks kind of hysterical, out there making wild attacks now and going crazy.”

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/...s-polls-shift/

Trump surges to the lead in NC

>>>SurveyUSA polled 659 people statewide Friday through Monday who have already cast their ballots or are likely to vote in the election and found Trump with a 51 to 44 percent lead over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.

In a WRAL News poll released three weeks ago, Clinton led Trump 46 to 44 percent.<<<


http://www.wral.com/wral-poll-trump-...05QuCVXH9Ro.99

ALL mentions of Hillary Clinton have been scrubbed from Michele Obama's account.

http://yournewswire.com/michelle-oba...inton-twitter/

Send lawyers, guns and money
The sh!t has hit the fan

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.

What I am detecting is a wish to perpetuate the false narrative that liberals hate the military. Look, Gore/Lieberman had the right to fight their case in the manner they wished. The law was on their side. "Considering all that our military troops do for the country" is an EMOTIONAL response. EVERY vote should have been counted, and ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out. Full stop.

Hate is a strong word. They're typically aloof about the military and outright heartless to our veterans.

What happened in Libya has been covered up so I can relate to the minority who claim liberals hate the military. If what happened in Benghazi is true it is without a doubt that they want our troops to die.

There's no other way to defend the rumors.

If she wins then I am in full support of women being drafted.

After all it is women who will elect her. Let them fight the wars. They can do anything according to the people on the television.

Gore and Lieberman wanted to do the exact opposite of what you are saying. They didn't want to throw out votes that violated established standards. The established standard in Florida was to count the votes by putting the ballots into the machines that count the votes. The machines count any ballot where the hole is punched for a candidate. When the vote is really close, there is an automatic recount. The recount is very simple. They put the ballots into the machines and the machines count the votes again. That was what was done in Florida in the 200 election. Bush won on election night, but the vote was very close so there was an automatic recount. Bush won the recount fair and square. So then Gore decided that he wanted to recount the ballots by hand and try to get ballots counted that the machines did not count. There is no legal justification to do that. The kind of ballots that were used are meant to be counted by machine, not by hand.

Do you remember watching the recount by hand? Do you remember how ridiculous it was? In many cases, after visually inspecting ballots, the people counting the votes did not agree on who a ballot was for. It's not suppose to be subjective. That is why we use machines. The machines are not biased. If you punched the hole (they used punch ballots that year in Florida) all the way through for Gore, the machine would count a vote for Gore. If you only partially punched it, or if if you also punched or partially a the hole for Bush, the ballot would obviously not count. You can't vote for both of them. If you voted for both, the ballot would obviously not count.

As you said, "Ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out." That is exactly right. And the machines only count ballots where one hole is punched all the way through, period. Yet Gore wanted to change the rules and count ballots by hand in counties where more people vote democrat. His rationale was that he wanted all the votes to be counted and he didn't want a ballot to be thrown out on a technicality (in most cases the technicality being that the hole wasn't punched all the way through, or another hole was also partially punched). You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we want all the votes to be counted. We do not want to disqualify ballots based on a technicality (the technicality being the machine not recognizing the vote based on a uniform standard of how the machines count votes). But on the other hand, we want to disqualify other ballots based on a technicality (that there was no postmark). That is complete hypocrisy.

Is my math right? I'm looking at the map and the electoral count. According to Silver's map, Hillary is ahead 299.8 to 237. But Silver is counting Florida for Hillary. Most polls now show Trump ahead in Florida. Florida is worth 29 electoral votes. So if Trump wins Florida, then it would Hillary 271, Trump 266. Silver has Hillary winning North Carolina. I have seen polls showing Trump ahead in NC. NC is worth 15 electoral votes. So if Trump wins NC, he wins 281- 256. I had thought he needed to win either Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota. But assuming he wins Florida (and assuming everything else on Silver's map is correct), then all he needs to do is win NC to win the election. Is that correct?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

Edit: I think I am misreading something on his map and forecast. If you check his polls plus forecast (rather than just his polls without forecast), he actually has Trump winning both Florida and NC. Yet it shows the electoral count as Hillary at 296 and Trump at 240.9. So I believe Trump does in fact need to win another big state such as either Pennsylvania or Michigan, or win another few smaller ones that he is trailing in such as Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, and Wisconsin.

Nate Silver and his ardent supporters are pearl clutching sissies. Look at the comments section of any article he posts.

It's like he panders to femme boys.

The way it looks right now, he will win toss up states NC, OH, FL, AZ, NV, IA.

That puts him at 265. he takes NH + the 2nd district of ME and he's there.

That is without winning CO, VA, (both within the MOE) and swinging any of the traditional blue states that are absolutely in play based on post-FBI investigation polls (MI, WI, PA, NM). He gets ANY of these and he is in with or without New England.

Prices are dropping on Trump daily by overseas bookmakers. Currently 65% of the waging is on Trump.

New Project Veritas video

Benjamin Barber is an academic lunatic. Must watch.

All these elites like Barber do is divide and conquer.

He reminds me of a wannabe Soros.

Disgusting human being and his wife is equally as shameful.

All Republicans are like the Nazis and are murderers according to Benjamin Barber. A short, ugly man who wears scarves and wines and dines with international elites and has a propaganda piece titled...

Jihad vs. McWorld

What the f.uck is he doing living in America? Is his intent living here simply to destroy his home?

Looks that way.

Something else to consider - virtually EVERY poll was heavily weight +D to account for the support/popularity of Obama in 2008 and 2012, primarily among the African American community. That support, in early voting is nonexistent thus far, as early voting among African Americans is down 25%.

This is an enormously important development. All polls, particularly national polls, should be eyed cautiously.

Despicable.

Trump. Miami. Right Now.



HRC was here in Dade City yesterday and there were as many Trump protesters as supporters ( about a few hundred each)

Coach what have you heard about these Steve Pieczenik vids? Anything there?

Worked under Kissinger. Highly skeptical.

The dims are bringing out their final act in less than 3 hours.

It's a dud.

I'm not taking any of his story and posting it.

There's so much dis-info out there it's tough to keep track. Especially considering what's coming at 6pm.

Agreed. It's why I purposely did not link it. Highly suspect, but also cannot say it's the first time I've heard about it. It's been going around for ages.

Hillary and Henry are good friends.

This bottom-feeding shark is going to show her ass and the media is going to run with it. Like daughter, like mother.

Two revolting harpies doing henchman work for traitors.

Pie guy shows up with these bold declarations and it gets reversed in under 48 hours.

They're too transparent at this point. This story has been in alt-right news cycles repeatedly during the primary and the general.

They have nothing. What the citizen journalists have is proof of collusion between victim, firm, and campaign.