OT: GOP Voter Fraud Accusations Suddenly Blowing Up In Their Faces

Page 4 of 5  


That statement was made by one Republican state representative in PA. Let me translate his meaning and thinking. He's concerned that Democrats are running around registering people who are NOT eligible to vote to get more votes for Obama to ensure that Obama will win. By requiring voter ID, he hopes to eliminate fraud and have a fair election, in which case, he's saying if the election is fair, Romney will win. No evil plot there, no matter how desperate you are to try to spin it.

Virtually do not exist? Florida had indentified 2600 that appear to be illegal aliens. They have been working to further identify the true status of those, a task that the Obama administration has made impossible by refusing to share data. As of now, over 200 of those have in fact been found to be non-citizens and removed from the voter rolls. Florida is a swing state and in 2000, only 534 votes decided the election. So, not only do they exist, but they potentially could have a deciding effect.

Then now you agree with me. That's good!

Why? Is it only Democrats that are too lazy to take proper ID to vote? Men and women died for this country, but presenting an ID which almost every legitimate voter would already have and those that don't can easily obtain, is an unreasonable burden for a Democrat voter? What kind of citizens are they? You go to get on a plane, cash a check, register a car, you have to present a photo ID. But for an election, why that's just an unreasonable burden?

Making sure that only those eligible to vote actually do so is just making it a fair election.

Boy, Obama tanking big time sure has you libs all spun up.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You think that honesty and accountability is offensive to libs? I've also noted that.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
That statement was made by one Republican state representative in PA. Let me translate his meaning and thinking. He's concerned that Democrats are running around registering people who are NOT eligible to vote to get more votes for Obama to ensure that Obama will win. By requiring voter ID, he hopes to eliminate fraud and have a fair election, in which case, he's saying if the election is fair, Romney will win. No evil plot there, no matter how desperate you are to try to spin it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, it's because they Dems don't want to get caught.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Is it okay? If done legally, certainly.

Some evidently do.

The United States Supreme Court has upheld picture IDs as a requirement for voting.
April 28, 2008 "[WASHINGTON] The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law /
Better get your facts straight before waxing profound.

Again, if it's legal, it's okay.

I agree this activity is unacceptable and the perpetrator(s) should be severely sanctioned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And by a 6-3 vote, not the "usual" 5-4.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

We have moral and ethical principles; they just don't happen to agree with yours. One of our differences is that I (we) believe in following society's laws, that to do so is, in the main, the proper thing to do. We do not hold with situational morality, with what feels good at the moment.
We hold that process is more important than outcome whereas our progressive adversaries proclaim that the end justifies the means. In our universe, if the rules generate a bad outcome, we can change the rules. By so doing, we have some expectation over the result of future, similar, situations. Belligerents on the other side of the political spectrum maintain that each situation must be evaluated in situ, according to the unique circumstances of each problem. In the latter case, very similar circumstances can generate wildly different results. This, in turn, generates insanity, bipolar disorders, and oscillation between euphoria and despair, which is, many agree, is symptomatic of the liberal left.
As an example of this phenomenon, consider the present election:
I have no doubt that, if Romney loses, the Republicans will shrug their shoulders and resolve to do better next time. If, on the other hand, Obama loses, well, there have already been cautions about rioting in the streets... Should this unfortunate - and probably unlikely - event take place, there will be several (many?) dead liberals in the streets, which, when thinking on it, won't be a bad thing at all.
All that said, I wish you well with your philosophy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. But, to "explain" it, I can't. The perp could have been motivated by money, ideology, or laziness. Things like this happen, even with the other side.

No, it will be the law.

I think you've wrapped your mind around the issue.

Huh? What's Fox News got to do with anything other than you using a conversation to segue into a rant on a topic unrelated?

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll discount the Fox News accounts of the hurricane threatening New York.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Heh!
First, storms like this have happened before. Not often, but they have happened.
Second, virtually NOBODY is talking about Global Warming, except of course Michael Mann who recently claimed he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

You may be correct. For example, this past Sunday, the 28th, NOT ONE of the major network (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) Sunday talk shows said a single word about the Benghazi debacle. It was covered only on Fox.
Therefore, it's possible that these MSM networks talk constantly about GW, but GW is seldom mentioned on Fox.

Well, yeah. All hurricanes derive their energy from ocean temperatures. What makes THIS storm so potent, I've come to understand, is a COLD front bearing down from Canada. Since both this cold front and the hurricane are built around low pressure areas, we get one low-pressure area reinforcing the other. Bad doggie. No cookie.
Anyway, if not for the COLD front, the area would just be experiencing an almost pooped-out tropical storm.
Tip to those west of the hard-hit area: You may be inundated by evacuees from the troubled scene. If so, stand at your city limits and forbid entry.
I'm in Houston. For many, many years we - and others - enjoyed the hospitality of New Orleans and, when Katrina struck, we were only too happy to reciprocate by doing what we could to help the victims of that tragedy.
Fortunately, the emigres killed each other with great regularity (our city's homicide rate tripled) and those that didn't get killed or get caught killing somebody met a form of justice with which they were unfamiliar: "Whatcha mean, Mr Officer, that I can't be moseyin' thru my 'hood with a malt and a toke? I could back home!"
All that silliness took about three years to sort out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you live in dreamland. if Romney loses, the repubs will whine and then say it was because of illegal voters...and limbaugh will be the quickest and loudest with that spiel, starting hours before the polls close
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same with the Dems.. at least they have the last two they lost. Sorta interesting that neither side can come to grips with the fact that people voted against them.... How DARE they!!!!
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

John Husted, the GOP Secretary of State for Ohio, tried to limit early voting hours in predominately Democratic counties, while allowing longer hours in Republican ones (I realize that he did this out of his deep and abiding concern for the 47%ers who might be prevented from obtaining the government benefits they didn't earn if they were stuck in long lines, or maybe it was his concern for traffic congestion in the counties with the worst roads, or maybe it was his fear that should a major incident occur, the few medical facilities available would be overwhelmed should they riot, as they are none to do). In the uproar that followed, he backed down and ordered all counties to have the same hours...then he fired two local election officials, both democrats, who tried to extend weekend hours.
Husted also vigorously backed a law, passed by the republican state Legislature to ban in-person early voting in the three days before Nov 6 for everyone except military personnel-a change from the 2008 election, when about 106000 Ohioans voted during that period
Early voting is crucial to Obamas chances.
After the Obama campaign sued to throw out the law, a federal judge ruled it is unconstitutional. Husted didn't give up, taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court...which turned down his appeal.
Just saying...that there's voter fraud and then there's collusion: Why hasn't husted been charged with violations of voters rights, which just in Ohio could have eliminated more voters than all the "illegal" voters anyone could find in the whole US
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Because the courts have long recognized that voting is, in the main, a POLITICAL matter, not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. The court tries, sometimes without success, to avoid meddling in political disputes.
For example, the Indiana case before the Supreme Court on the state requiring a photo ID, ignored any "undue burden" argument, which would have made the case a constitutional one. In essence, the court said a state may impose almost any requirement on voters that it deems proper (i.e., requiring voters to wear some sort of red-colored clothing, approach the polling place on unicycles, or whatever).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so it's your theory that shutting down early voting in democratic counties while leaving them open in republican counties in no way infringes on a voters rights?
of course any decision about voting is political, but interfering with that act is surely constitutional
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

No, I didn't say or mean that. The courts have held that a state may impose just about any condition on voting it chooses so long as the condition is uniform. In your example, shutting down the polls early happens every four years in a little town in Maine where every registered voter in the ENTIRE town votes shortly after midnight on election day. I think there are something like eleven people in the whole burg!

Exactly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the case I cited, the conditions were not uniform, so I wondered why a repub sec of state in a state with a repub legislature didn't find the SoS to be in violation of his duties and immediately remove him from office or at least cite him for violating the civil rights of those fine citizens in the democratic counties

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder if there is a constitutional protection for something that really isn't required by the constitution. That is voting on 11-6 this year is the only required part.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I understand something I heard on network news the other day, even that is up to the state, but seldom changed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They were wrong. 2 US Code is the general area that we are discussing in terms of the Presidential election. It says real clearly that the election has to be Tue after the first monday. They could probably mess with state races, but the Pres has to go off on schedule and the only thing that can change it is an Act of Congress.
2 USC 7 - Time of election
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/26/2012 4:21 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Do you just believe and embrace any "rumor" without consideration? What you described would be a little difficult with the judge of elections who is at each polling place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.