|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 11, 2008 13:42:50 GMT -5
where are the santurelles, minks, etc. on this topic???
cricket.......cricket.........cricket.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 12, 2008 17:10:00 GMT -5
Well, look at the pot calling the kettle black? I would think it is strategy on the Dems to ensure a decent number of votes after the last two shady elections. I don't think there is any fraud, but if there is, I'm sure it will be dealt with, unlike 2000 & 2004 elections. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2973827/Republicans-move-to-deny-homeless-votes-Democrats-claim.htmlquote: Democrats in Michigan are trying to block what they call a Republican effort to deny voting rights to people who have lost their homes in the mortgage crisis. Bob Bauer, a senior lawyer with the Obama campaign said any such tactic creates an atmosphere of intimidation that could drive voters from the polls. The campaign says Republicans are trying to compile a list of foreclosed owners and their addresses which they plan to use to challenge voters at polling stations. The Republicans are likely to argue they are merely keeping a watch over voter fraud, though non-partisan groups have said the number of cases where false addresses and similar ruses are used is minimal. The row will revive memories of past cases when Republicans have been accused of removing preventing likely Democrat voters from voting, as in the decisive Florida recount of 2000 and again in 2004. ________________________________________________ Did you miss me?  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 12, 2008 17:44:07 GMT -5
Mink, if a person has moved out of a precinct, they can't vote there anymore, simple as that. Voting materials such as sample ballots can't even be forwarded.
If people drag their feet about updating their voter registration (failing in their civic duty), why should they be allowed to vote in their old precincts? It could also, due to the timing of things, allow a person to be able to vote twice, once in the old precinct, and once on a provisional ballot in the new one.
I see nothing at all wrong with taking steps to prevent voter fraud. Seems that you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 12, 2008 18:19:51 GMT -5
subdjoe: "I see nothing at all wrong with taking steps to prevent voter fraud. Seems that you do." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If that is the case, you should be angry at both 2000 & 2004 elections. I have a problem with voter fraud and if you read my post, you will see that I support an investigation/s. As for the Republicans trying to keep voters of foreclosed property issue, I think they have a handle on that....which could be a good reason Mccain ditched that state (Michigan) michiganmessenger.com/4221/foreclosure-may-not-be-basis-for-voter-challengequote: Indeed, even if a person’s home has been foreclosed upon, and they have been evicted from that home, Michigan election law 168.507a allows a voter to vote at their last-registered voter address. “(2) A registered and qualified elector of this state who has moved from the city or township in which he or she is registered to another city or township within the state after the sixtieth day before an election or primary election shall be permitted to vote in the election or primary election at the place of last registration upon the signing of a form containing an affidavit stating that the move has taken place. This subsection shall apply if the county in which the elector is registered has not implemented the county file as the official file pursuant to section 509e.” Additionally, a person’s registration outweighs even the state’s Homestead Exemption Affidavit — signed by a property owner under penalty of perjury — as the true place of residence and eligibility. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 12, 2008 18:41:33 GMT -5
If that is the case, you should be angry at both 2000 & 2004 elections. Mink, please elaborate on your allusion to voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 election. The trouble with your position, Mink, is that any investigation will only occur after the election. Do you think it will be possible to reverse the election if rampant fraud is found? By the time the guilty parties are prosecuted, if ever, the damage will be done. Organizations like ACORN are counting on that. That's why they do a registration dump on the poor county registrars the last day that registrations are accepted. The answer is to stop giving ACORN money. Under the guise of affordable housing, ACORN collects federal funds, which it then diverts to fraudulent voter registration drives. However, since the majority of ACORN people are African-American, they are the "third rail" of electoral politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 12, 2008 19:11:25 GMT -5
If that is the case, you should be angry at both 2000 & 2004 elections. Mink, please elaborate on your allusion to voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 election. The trouble with your position, Mink, is that any investigation will only occur after the election. Do you think it will be possible to reverse the election if rampant fraud is found? By the time the guilty parties are prosecuted, if ever, the damage will be done. Organizations like ACORN are counting on that. That's why they do a registration dump on the poor county registrars the last day that registrations are accepted. The answer is to stop giving ACORN money. Under the guise of affordable housing, ACORN collects federal funds, which it then diverts to fraudulent voter registration drives. However, since the majority of ACORN people are African-American, they are the "third rail" of electoral politics. We have had 8 years of going over the fraudulent elections of 2000 & 2004 elections, so I would think we are all on the same page.....if not, you are in denial. If ACORN is indeed guilty of fraud, it has been questioned before the elections and I would think it is under control or will be by the elections. As for your suggestion that investigations will happen after the election, well that is untrue. They have been investigating. Allegations of fraud by the Republicans is ludicrous if not a sign of guilt on their part. They can scream "fraud", but it won't change the fact that the country has had enough! |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 13, 2008 12:17:49 GMT -5
subdjoe: "I see nothing at all wrong with taking steps to prevent voter fraud. Seems that you do." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If that is the case, you should be angry at both 2000 & 2004 elections. I have a problem with voter fraud and if you read my post, you will see that I support an investigation/s. As for the Republicans trying to keep voters of foreclosed property issue, I think they have a handle on that....which could be a good reason Mccain ditched that state (Michigan) michiganmessenger.com/4221/foreclosure-may-not-be-basis-for-voter-challengequote: Indeed, even if a person’s home has been foreclosed upon, and they have been evicted from that home, Michigan election law 168.507a allows a voter to vote at their last-registered voter address. “(2) A registered and qualified elector of this state who has moved from the city or township in which he or she is registered to another city or township within the state after the sixtieth day before an election or primary election shall be permitted to vote in the election or primary election at the place of last registration upon the signing of a form containing an affidavit stating that the move has taken place. This subsection shall apply if the county in which the elector is registered has not implemented the county file as the official file pursuant to section 509e.” Additionally, a person’s registration outweighs even the state’s Homestead Exemption Affidavit — signed by a property owner under penalty of perjury — as the true place of residence and eligibility. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pardon me while I clear my throat... aaaahhhheeemmmm. [insert standard democrat argument here] This election is not about Clinton Bush. It is time to move on and talk about now. [/insert standard democrat argument here] I was watching the news this morning, and they had a young man on who ACRON had registered countless times, just to get paid. Some gave him a dollar for his signature, others gave him a cigarette (I thought democrats hated smoking). Seems ACORN is getting caught with the old hand in the cookie jar. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 13, 2008 16:22:46 GMT -5
We have had 8 years of going over the fraudulent elections of 2000 & 2004 elections, so I would think we are all on the same page.....if not, you are in denial. Oh, that's right! The 2000 election, where Al Gore tried to get just selected counties recounted in his favor. And, the 2004 election, where the Left claimed voter fraud because the official results did not match the exit polling. Any time a Democrat does not win, it must obviously be a result of fraud. Who's in denial? No, Mink, it will not be under control in time to prevent fradulent voting in November. Try this, or this, or this, or this... shall I go on? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 13, 2008 16:34:42 GMT -5
We have had 8 years of going over the fraudulent elections of 2000 & 2004 elections, so I would think we are all on the same page.....if not, you are in denial.You are referring, I trust, to certain inner city Philadelphia precincts that went 100% for Al Gore in 2000... with a higher "turnout" than known to live within the confines of the precinct? That kind of fraud? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 13, 2008 21:23:46 GMT -5
We have had 8 years of going over the fraudulent elections of 2000 & 2004 elections, so I would think we are all on the same page.....if not, you are in denial.You are referring, I trust, to certain inner city Philadelphia precincts that went 100% for Al Gore in 2000... with a higher "turnout" than known to live within the confines of the precinct? That kind of fraud? Ok, for your sake Bog Dog , where is your link...if you really want to go down the road to justify why the republicans cheated better than the Dems......  |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 14, 2008 14:24:34 GMT -5
Ok, for your sake Bog Dog, where is your link...if you really want to go down the road to justify why the republicans cheated better than the Dems...... No response to my links? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 14, 2008 14:53:49 GMT -5
You are referring, I trust, to certain inner city Philadelphia precincts that went 100% for Al Gore in 2000... with a higher "turnout" than known to live within the confines of the precinct? That kind of fraud? Ok, for your sake Bog Dog , where is your link...if you really want to go down the road to justify why the republicans cheated better than the Dems...... I think rather he is pointing out the hypocracy of the progressives at not expressing the same outrage over the Democrats cheating. The progressives are kind of like the guy with numerous affairs under his belt who flies into moral outrage when he finds out his wife is having an affair. Surely the O! so righteous Dems, who condemn all cheating and lying from any source should be the first to clean their own houses rather than excusing it, and then, inventing stories of "cheating" by the GOP. Time and again the lies of the left about GOP cheating have been debunked by neutral, and even leftist, sources. |
|
