Election changing voter fraud discovered

[Yssup Rider]

When we find the illegal votes, they'll all have been for Twitler

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When we find the illegal votes, they'll all have been for Twitler

It appears that it's far more common to find a dead person who voted for Lincoln also voting for Hillery than a Russian citizen voting in America for Trump.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

I notice that the people who don't believe in voter fraud are the lefties here. Unless a democrat loses then that is all they can talk about.

Poll tax: Despite the mewing of idiots I was not talking about a poll tax. Our founders promoted the idea of skin in the game. That is you were paying taxes then you deserved representation. Remember "No taxation without representation"? The idea that the colonist paid taxes but had no one in the parliment to speak for them. Reverse the concept, if you don't pay any federal taxes then you don't deserve a say in how the government runs. You are probaby a ward of the government and can't be counted on to vote for the good of the country. Put some skin in the game and you get to participate whether you make 10,000 or 10 million.

Domicile versus residency: Notice how the lefties want to have it both ways? If someone is domiciled like a college student or military member they don't pay state taxes and they are not a resident except in a technical sense. This gives them an opportunity to vote in two places; the place where they are domiciled and where they are technically a resident. That is a gross violation of the law and the lefties here would prefer to ignore the possibility rather than investigate. No state should have a definite definition of residency for a federal election. A federal election should have a uniform code of rules othewise we will have illegal aliens voting in California and felons voting in Illinois. We already have the dead voting on Chicago, why not the felons as well.

Why is the left so determined to shut down an investigation? There were certainly enough suspicious votes that could have overturned the legitimate results. In my home state of Missouri, they don't even count the absentee ballots unless they could change the outcome of an election. If someone wins by 18,000 votes and they only have 3500 votes that have not been opened, what's the problem.

Anytime an irregularity could change the outcome such as having more votes than registered voters, multiple registrations turned in by a single person, deceased voters finding their way to the polls, and (only a nationwide database will do it) if you find the same person voting in different states in the same election there should be a Justice Department investigation because it is a FEDERAL election.

[Yssup Rider]

Agreed, goodolboy.

Who the fuck ever suggested Russians were voting here?

Dim bulb.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I notice that the people who don't believe in voter fraud are the lefties here. Unless a democrat loses then that is all they can talk about.

Poll tax: Despite the mewing of idiots I was not talking about a poll tax. Our founders promoted the idea of skin in the game. That is you were paying taxes then you deserved representation. Remember "No taxation without representation"? The idea that the colonist paid taxes but had no one in the parliment to speak for them. Reverse the concept, if you don't pay any federal taxes then you don't deserve a say in how the government runs. You are probaby a ward of the government and can't be counted on to vote for the good of the country. Put some skin in the game and you get to participate whether you make 10,000 or 10 million.

Domicile versus residency: Notice how the lefties want to have it both ways? If someone is domiciled like a college student or military member they don't pay state taxes and they are not a resident except in a technical sense. This gives them an opportunity to vote in two places; the place where they are domiciled and where they are technically a resident. That is a gross violation of the law and the lefties here would prefer to ignore the possibility rather than investigate. No state should have a definite definition of residency for a federal election. A federal election should have a uniform code of rules othewise we will have illegal aliens voting in California and felons voting in Illinois. We already have the dead voting on Chicago, why not the felons as well.

Why is the left so determined to shut down an investigation? There were certainly enough suspicious votes that could have overturned the legitimate results. In my home state of Missouri, they don't even count the absentee ballots unless they could change the outcome of an election. If someone wins by 18,000 votes and they only have 3500 votes that have not been opened, what's the problem.

Anytime an irregularity could change the outcome such as having more votes than registered voters, multiple registrations turned in by a single person, deceased voters finding their way to the polls, and (only a nationwide database will do it) if you find the same person voting in different states in the same election there should be a Justice Department investigation because it is a FEDERAL election.

"A recent poll by YouGov shows fifty percent of Democrats think the Russians tampered with vote counts to help Donald Trump win." https://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2...ts-help-trump/

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When we find the illegal votes, they'll all have been for Hildabeast

yer absolutely right...

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Exactly, it's hard to find evidence if you never look., Showing ID is racist, unless you want to buy smokes, booze, rent a room or a car, write a check, use a credit card, or sign up for public assistance.

And when the dems not only are not wanting us to look, but are deliberately trying to STOP OTHERS looking, you can bet its to cover UP evidence of fraud..

[Munchmasterman]

How stupid are you?
Who said there is no fraud? There is no proof of wide spread significant fraud.
Who is trying to shut down an investigation? @200 people may have voted twice. Find them.
N. H. has no residency requirements other than proof you live there.

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I notice that the people who don't believe in voter fraud are the lefties here. Unless a democrat loses then that is all they can talk about.

Poll tax: Despite the mewing of idiots I was not talking about a poll tax. Our founders promoted the idea of skin in the game. That is you were paying taxes then you deserved representation. Remember "No taxation without representation"? The idea that the colonist paid taxes but had no one in the parliment to speak for them. Reverse the concept, if you don't pay any federal taxes then you don't deserve a say in how the government runs. You are probaby a ward of the government and can't be counted on to vote for the good of the country. Put some skin in the game and you get to participate whether you make 10,000 or 10 million.

Domicile versus residency: Notice how the lefties want to have it both ways? If someone is domiciled like a college student or military member they don't pay state taxes and they are not a resident except in a technical sense. This gives them an opportunity to vote in two places; the place where they are domiciled and where they are technically a resident. That is a gross violation of the law As I stated, douche-bag. There is a record of every vote cast.and the lefties here would prefer to ignore the possibility rather than investigate. No state should have a definite definition of residency for a federal election. A federal election should have a uniform code of rules othewise we will have illegal aliens voting in California and felons voting in Illinois. We already have the dead voting on Chicago, why not the felons as well.

Why is the left so determined to shut down an investigation? There were certainly enough suspicious votes that could have overturned the legitimate results. In my home state of Missouri, they don't even count the absentee ballots unless they could change the outcome of an election. If someone wins by 18,000 votes and they only have 3500 votes that have not been opened, what's the problem.

Anytime an irregularity could change the outcome such as having more votes than registered voters, multiple registrations turned in by a single person, deceased voters finding their way to the polls, and (only a nationwide database will do it) if you find the same person voting in different states in the same election there should be a Justice Department investigation because it is a FEDERAL election.

You're full of shit. They count all votes. Do you know why dumb-ass?

Because ballots have more than 1 name on them and each county has local races.
If the person was ahead by 18000 and there were 2 counties with a voting population of 10000 combined, do you think they are going to toss or not count the votes from those 2 counties?

Don't you do any research at all?
You have no clue as to how much you don't know about things in general.
And you never will know because you are getting less intelligent as you age.
You obviously have nothing to do with course content for your class.

What a fucking moron.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

How stupid are you?
Who said there is no fraud? There is no proof of wide spread significant fraud.
Who is trying to shut down an investigation? @200 people may have voted twice. Find them.
N. H. has no residency requirements other than proof you live there.
You're full of shit. They count all votes. Do you know why dumb-ass?

Because ballots have more than 1 name on them and each county has local races.
If the person was ahead by 18000 and there were 2 counties with a voting population of 10000 combined, do you think they are going to toss or not count the votes from those 2 counties?

Don't you do any research at all?
You have no clue as to how much you don't know about things in general.
And you never will know because you are getting less intelligent as you age.
You obviously have nothing to do with course content for your class.

What a fucking moron.

+1

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I notice that the people who don't believe in voter fraud are the lefties here. Unless a democrat loses then that is all they can talk about.

Poll tax: Despite the mewing of idiots I was not talking about a poll tax. Our founders promoted the idea of skin in the game. That is you were paying taxes then you deserved representation. Remember "No taxation without representation"? The idea that the colonist paid taxes but had no one in the parliment to speak for them. Reverse the concept, if you don't pay any federal taxes then you don't deserve a say in how the government runs. You are probaby a ward of the government and can't be counted on to vote for the good of the country. Put some skin in the game and you get to participate whether you make 10,000 or 10 million.

Domicile versus residency: Notice how the lefties want to have it both ways? If someone is domiciled like a college student or military member they don't pay state taxes and they are not a resident except in a technical sense. This gives them an opportunity to vote in two places; the place where they are domiciled and where they are technically a resident. That is a gross violation of the law and the lefties here would prefer to ignore the possibility rather than investigate. No state should have a definite definition of residency for a federal election. A federal election should have a uniform code of rules othewise we will have illegal aliens voting in California and felons voting in Illinois. We already have the dead voting on Chicago, why not the felons as well.

Why is the left so determined to shut down an investigation? There were certainly enough suspicious votes that could have overturned the legitimate results. In my home state of Missouri, they don't even count the absentee ballots unless they could change the outcome of an election. If someone wins by 18,000 votes and they only have 3500 votes that have not been opened, what's the problem.

Anytime an irregularity could change the outcome such as having more votes than registered voters, multiple registrations turned in by a single person, deceased voters finding their way to the polls, and (only a nationwide database will do it) if you find the same person voting in different states in the same election there should be a Justice Department investigation because it is a FEDERAL election.

You are bitching about the state law of new Hampshire, and you live in Kansas.
No where in the links provided did it say they could vote twice.
Basically you are blowing smoke.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Exactly, it's hard to find evidence if you never look., Showing ID is racist, unless you want to buy smokes, booze, rent a room or a car, write a check, use a credit card, or sign up for public assistance.


"A single Bronx voter listed in official records as being 164 years old led Board of Elections officials to review their files — where they turned up another 849 New Yorkers who were supposedly alive when Abe Lincoln was president."



"Burwell is one of about 6,100 deceased people still registered to vote in Nassau County, a Newsday computer analysis shows. The former Wantagh resident, who died at age 74, is also among roughly 270 people that records show voted in Nassau County after dying, a group that includes a man who voted 14 times since his death."

Could you give the link for the references for the Bronx and Nassau county examples, please ?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by WTF

Entirely up to the assholes in question.

LMAO!!!!!!

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Exactly, it's hard to find evidence if you never look., Showing ID is racist, unless you want to buy smokes, booze, rent a room or a car, write a check, use a credit card, or sign up for public assistance.

None of those are constitutional rights.

SCOTUS ruled a man's 2A rights couldn't be revoked over a non felony assault charge for domestic violence.

How then can a person who has committed no crime be denied their right to vote because they do not possess a driver's license without evidence that the common welfare could be put in jeopardy by not requiring an ID?

Requiring an ID for a gun sale or the requirement to be licenced to carry might be the counter argument.

However there isn't an ammendment specifically forbidding a monetary fee for bearing arms.

Because of 24A, the requirement of a driver's license to vote is seen to violate that ammendment. It very well could be the case, it might no be. This is where the big rub is.

I believe the public welfare argument also comes into play with 2A.

Never the less only other constitutional rights requiring ID can be used to compare.


Localities and state and federal can and should verify their voting registers against votes cast without relying on IDs. An ID may make it easier but certainly not the only method used to validate votes.


The alleged fraud the OP and everyone in agreement with him, occurred even with the use drivers licenses!

Relying on drivers licenses may have made it easier for the fraud to occur, if in fact it did.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Exactly, it's hard to find evidence if you never look., The repubs looked for evidence, didn't like what they found, then cherry picked the raw data. Just think, if they contacted the voters in question, they could have cleared this up.
Looks like it would have cleared it the wrong way.
I will say up front that's my opinion. Stop pretending your opinions are facts. Bareley boy's anecdotal tidbits aren't facts.Showing ID is racist, unless you want to buy smokes, booze, rent a room or a car, write a check, use a credit card, or sign up for public assistance.
[/I]

Thank you for pointing this out.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/0...e-voter-fraud/

"The accusation arose Thursday morning, when Shawn Jasper, the speaker of New Hampshire’s Republican-run House of Representatives, released data on same-day registrants that he’d obtained from the secretary of state’s office. In November 2016, 6,540 voters had registered to vote on Election Day. As of Aug. 30, just 1,014 of those voters had obtained a New Hampshire drivers license. A few hundred voters did not obtain state licenses but had registered cars in the state.
That was enough for Jasper to allege thousands of fraudulent votes – and for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the vice chairman of the commission, to flatly allege that fraudulent voters might have stolen the state’s four electoral votes and a U.S. Senate seat away from Republicans.
“If 59.2 percent or more of them went for [Democratic Sen. Maggie] Hassan, then the election was stolen through voter fraud,” Kobach wrote in a column for Breitbart. “That’s likely, since the surrounding states are Democrat (sic) strongholds.”"
The guy with the information from the state department, the republican, offers no breakdown of what states these out of state voters come from. He has the information but only implies they come from "the surrounding states."
"Kobach apparently made no attempt to contact voters who’d cast ballots but held out-of-state IDs." Again,
the guy with the data makes no attempt to identify the situations the various voters came from. The repubs run the N.H. House of Representatives.
So who isn't looking?
"Thursday night, The Washington Post asked voters who’d done so to tell their stories; three did so within 60 minutes – college students, who were living in New Hampshire but did not change their licenses."

So did you have any facts that support your opinions?

[Yssup Rider]

Is that all you homos have?

You want the forum back?

You know what to do.