Post by The Big Dog on Oct 14, 2008 16:46:30 GMT -5
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.
Exactly my point. I'm very happy that at least some of the posters here can comprehend simple English. Apparently that skill has become a challenge for the left in this country.
But since you asked for it.... how about this, Mink?
A consortium of major newspapers funded an extensive investigation of the Florida election, and was forced to agree that George W. Bush would probably have won that election no matter what. The central issue in these contests is the 35-day time limit to contesting elections. It certainly is true that, right or wrong, the country needs to settle its elections promptly and get on with its business. Furthermore, if a national election is so close that it takes months to decide the winner, there can't be a great deal of difference between the candidates, so who cares.
Looking back at the 2000 election with the liesure of time and appreciable resources, it is possible to see that Al Gore might have won that election if he had made several lucky choices in contesting its result. But it seems highly unlikely that anyone in his position would have been able to identify the winning combination of choices -- within the 35 day time allowed for pursuing them. He had to guess that ballots with two candidates marked ("overballoting") would pick up more Gore votes than ballots without an indicated choice ("underballoting"); he guessed wrong. He had to decide whether challenging late ballots from absentee military was worth the unpopularity of pursuing such a technicality to the disadvantage of soldiers serving overseas. His ticket-mate Joe Lieberman urged him to avoid that touchy issue which did prove to cost him some votes he needed. The decision was one to be proud of, but is a main reason why his party faithfuls later turned rather viciously against Lieberman. A second wrong guess was to fail to go after the software mixup on invalidating the ballots of convicted felons. He might have picked up a couple thousand votes, but only if willing to have the world learn that convicted felons are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic voters. The one decision he made that makes him look rather sappy to professional pols was to challenge ballots in the districts where he was already very popular.
Looking back at the 2000 election with the liesure of time and appreciable resources, it is possible to see that Al Gore might have won that election if he had made several lucky choices in contesting its result. But it seems highly unlikely that anyone in his position would have been able to identify the winning combination of choices -- within the 35 day time allowed for pursuing them. He had to guess that ballots with two candidates marked ("overballoting") would pick up more Gore votes than ballots without an indicated choice ("underballoting"); he guessed wrong. He had to decide whether challenging late ballots from absentee military was worth the unpopularity of pursuing such a technicality to the disadvantage of soldiers serving overseas. His ticket-mate Joe Lieberman urged him to avoid that touchy issue which did prove to cost him some votes he needed. The decision was one to be proud of, but is a main reason why his party faithfuls later turned rather viciously against Lieberman. A second wrong guess was to fail to go after the software mixup on invalidating the ballots of convicted felons. He might have picked up a couple thousand votes, but only if willing to have the world learn that convicted felons are overwhelmingly pro-Democratic voters. The one decision he made that makes him look rather sappy to professional pols was to challenge ballots in the districts where he was already very popular.
This reminder of the facts puts the LIE yet again to your ongoing assertions of Republican fraud or conspiracy in 2000. I've pointed this out to you numerous times in the past at the old PeeDee forum with plenty of fact and evidence. Your continued assertions that the election was stolen in 2000 and 2004 are baseless. Always have been and always will be. Get over it. Your man was a complete tool and lost to another one. Pull up your big kid pants at long last and get on with your life.
But we were talking about Democrats stealing elections, weren't we. In that regard, what about this? Bolding is mine.
Some of the sloppiness that makes fraud and foul-ups in election counts possible seems to be built into the system by design. The "Motor Voter Law," the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Clinton upon entering office, imposed fraud-friendly rules on the states by requiring driver's license bureaus to register anyone applying for licenses, to offer mail-in registration with no identification needed, and to forbid government workers to challenge new registrants, while making it difficult to purge "deadwood" voters (those who have died or moved away). In 2001, the voter rolls in many American cities included more names than the U.S. Census listed as the total number of residents over age eighteen. Philadelphia's voter rolls, for instance, have jumped 24 percent since 1995 at the same time that the city's population has declined by 13 percent. CBS's 60 Minutes created a stir in 1999 when it found people in California using mail-in forms to register fictitious people, or pets, and then obtaining absentee ballots in their names. By this means, for example, the illegal alien who assassinated the Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was registered to vote in San Pedro, California — twice.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
And just who was co-counsel for ACORN in defending the Clinton era Motor Voter Act, which has been shown time and again to be a road to fraudulent registration?
Why Barack Obama, that's who. In fact his campaign has had to pull his denial of same off their "Fight The Smears" web site simply because it was and is an outright lie on Obama's part.
How about this, Mink?
"Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board" with 57, 435 rejected for faulty information. "Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election."
"Voter fraud is no longer just a Philadelphia problem," Gleason said, with ACORN targeting key counties across the state.
<< snipped >>
* Philadelphia County: The situation in the state's largest city is so bad the Philadelphia City Commission, which supervises the registration of Philadelphia voters, voted unanimously to "voluntarily" turn over its extensive records to the United States Attorney's office for prosecution.
<< snipped >>
Asked whether the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party had come forward to work with the GOP on the ACORN voter fraud issue, Gleason tersely shook his head. One source did say that much of the impetus for the fraud was "an Obama effort," as opposed to the Democratic Party as an institution.
"Voter fraud is no longer just a Philadelphia problem," Gleason said, with ACORN targeting key counties across the state.
<< snipped >>
* Philadelphia County: The situation in the state's largest city is so bad the Philadelphia City Commission, which supervises the registration of Philadelphia voters, voted unanimously to "voluntarily" turn over its extensive records to the United States Attorney's office for prosecution.
<< snipped >>
Asked whether the Pennsylvania State Democratic Party had come forward to work with the GOP on the ACORN voter fraud issue, Gleason tersely shook his head. One source did say that much of the impetus for the fraud was "an Obama effort," as opposed to the Democratic Party as an institution.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to digest in high level bullet points?
Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).
Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).
Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)
<< snipped >>
Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a "smokes-for-votes" campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).
<< snipped >>
Absentee ballots. Normally it's assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami's 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98).
Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).
Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)
<< snipped >>
Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a "smokes-for-votes" campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).
<< snipped >>
Absentee ballots. Normally it's assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami's 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98).
While nearly every election ever held has had some sort of rigging along the way, the post modern Democrat party, ruled by a cabal of socialists, progressives and (in some cases) outright crooks, seems to be raising the rigging of elections to an art form. Republicans don't engage in those sorts of shenanigans and I dare you to source one credible and verifiable source that shows unequivocally that they do.
Because, at the end of the day, the game for the Democrats is to gain power no matter what it takes to get it done. And then to hold that power at any and all costs so as to continue to roll the grand social(ist) experiment. In that sense, it is most certainly the left that are the true fascists in this country, no matter how many times they attempt to dump that label on the right.
You and so many others like you have drunk deeply of the Kool Aid. You've bought into the class warfare, the forced redistribution of wealth and the punishment of acheivement that are the hallmarks of the socialist agenda, and which have failed (in some cases rather brutally) every time they've been tried.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid Mink. I'm sure that if Barack told you it was wine, you'd believe him and chug twice as hard.