PDA

View Full Version : Massive voter fraud in Texas...



Qtec
03-27-2012, 01:46 AM
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>WOW!!!!!!!!!</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a new Texas state law that would institute strict photo identification requirements for all citizens trying to vote. The DOJ refused to grant the law pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act, noting that the bill would unfairly disenfranchise Hispanic voters.

Supporters of the bill say the law is needed to prevent voter impersonation. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) argued:

" <span style="color: #000099">Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach and accurately reflect the will of voters. The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane. Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach.</span> "

How big has the problem been? According to the San Antonio Express-News:

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>Fewer than five</u> “illegal voting” complaints involving voter impersonations were filed with the Texas Attorney General’s Office from the 2008 and 2010 general elections in which more than 13 million voters participated.</span>

The Texas attorney general’s office did not give the outcome of the four illegal voting complaints that were filed. Only one remains pending, according to agency records.

And as ThinkProgress Justice previously reported, more people than that have been denied their right to vote due to these sorts of strict voter ID laws.

Though Perry has claimed Texas has endured “multiple cases” of voter fraud, even of the paltry 20 election law violation allegations the state’s attorney general handled in the 2008 and 2010 elections, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>most related to mail-in ballot or campaign finance violations, electioneering too close to a polling place, and a voter blocked by an election worker.</span></div></div>


FIVE out of THIRTEEN MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not good at maths, can any of our RW brethren help me out on this one and tell me what was the % of illegal votes cast?

Q..... link (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/26/451586/texas-fewer-than-five-voter-impersonation-cases/)

eg8r
03-27-2012, 07:58 AM
Well there you have it, qtip doesn't believe it happens because there are not many complaints. He refuses to believe that could be negatively reflecting on those who should be making the complaints or the fact that it is being allowed. Nope, qtip the idiot just throws his head in the sand as quickly as possible and ignores the chance it could still be going on.

What makes this even more funny is that many of these illegals actually break the law often enough and bad enough to spend time in jail but when it comes to voting, heck no they don't screw with those laws. You are such a schmuck.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-27-2012, 03:40 PM
There is a significant history of absentee voting fraud going back a long time. There is no significant history of actual VOTING FRAUD going back over a long time.

How do we know? The Bush administration tasked their own appointed US attorneys to prove it out, find it and prosecute it. They all turned up bupkus, were told to re-do the search and re-double their efforts, and still they found nothing substantial. Many were fired over this null result, and other, more zealous GOP partisan US attorneys took their places, and THEY DIDN'T FIND IT EITHER.

If this was so directly looked at by W's administration, in full press fashion, and that was the result, then the historical record of a lack of voter fraud of this type is well documented indeed.

Think it through. It's too unwieldy to accomplish, requiring nearly as many fraudulent voters as the number of votes one is trying to steal.

People think it's a huge issue only because the GOP has used it to pivot away from the far clearer case of their manipulation of the electronic voting machines, in typical Roveian fashion-- attacking where you are yourself most vulnerable.

eg8r
03-27-2012, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no significant history of actual VOTING FRAUD going back over a long time.
</div></div>Do you completely discount that this could also mean there could have been significant history of VOTER FRAUD COVERUP?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do we know? The Bush administration tasked their own appointed US attorneys to prove it out, find it and prosecute it. They all turned up bupkus</div></div>Again, you seem to pick and choose when you want to believe what the Reps say and do. My guess is that this was just a bit of sarcasm.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Think it through. It's too unwieldy to accomplish, requiring nearly as many fraudulent voters as the number of votes one is trying to steal.
</div></div>While at the same time it could be so simple requiring a very small number of people if it is all staged from the beginning and the people committing the fraud are working in tandem with the people at the polling site.

eg8r

Qtec
03-27-2012, 08:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Think Progress has a new post entitled: Texas Had ‘Fewer Than Five’ Voter Impersonation Cases Over Three Years. But that headline implies that at least one of these cases had merit. But there were only five complaints, and some or maybe even all such complaints are without merit. Think of those “dead” South Carolina voters. link (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31519)

The San Antonio Express-News, reported that: “The Texas attorney general’s office did not give the outcome of the four illegal voting complaints that were filed. <u>Only one remains pending</u>, according to agency records.”

Better headline, at least until the AG’s office releases more info: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Texas Had Perhaps ZERO Voter Impersonation Cases Over Three Years</span></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Again, you seem to pick and choose when you want to believe what the Reps say and do.</div></div>

Eh..no. In this case, its the Republicans who have <u>proven</u> themselves to be wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you completely discount that this could also mean there could have been <u>significant history of VOTER FRAUD COVERUP</u>?
</div></div>

I do because there is no evidence of this. Election fraud maybe.

Q

LWW
03-28-2012, 05:29 AM
What Snoop is arguing is that since it is so difficult to verify who actually cast the votes ... no crime was committed.

Reality shows something which will send him into a full deflect/defend/deny fit. The following is examples of only the dead voting:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>Episodes in 2008</u></span>

<u>California</u>

In October, KTVU Channel 2 cross-checked California's state death registry record across voter lists in the nine Bay Area counties, finding that in eight elections in the last ten years, "232 people with death certificates had voted after they had died – some more than once." ...

<u>Connecticut</u>
Election officials in Connecticut removed names from the state's voter rolls after journalism students found that thousands of dead people were still registered to vote. After conducting their own investigation, students at the University of Connecticut said this spring that about 8,500 dead people remained registered to vote. ...

<u>Mississippi</u>
Madison County, Mississippi has 123% more registered voters than people over the age of 18. 486 people on the list of registered voters are over 105. 190,000 new voters have registered for the 2008 election.

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann says, "It is terrible. Combined with the fact that we don't have voter ID in Mississippi, anybody can show up at any poll that happens to know the people who have left town or died -- and go vote for them. Whenever we have a third party determined by payment, for example, as they did in Benton County -- 'walking-around' money -- and they determine what that vote is going to be, they've taken your vote, whether they may have voted like you would have or not, they've still thwarted the process and they've still have taken your vote away from you."[6],[7]

<u>Texas</u>
Dallas County
Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters.[9]

Harris County
More than 4,000 people's names are listed both on Harris County’s voter rolls and also in a federal database of death records, a Texas Watchdog analysis has found.[10]

Dozens have apparently cast ballots from beyond the grave, records since 2004 show. One expert says the number of deceased names used to cast ballots may be higher than what Texas Watchdog’s analysis found. Instances of dead voters’ names being used to cast ballots were most frequent in three elections, the November 2004 general election, the November 2006 general election and the March 2008 Democratic primary, the analysis found.[10]

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>Episodes in 2006</u></span>

<u>New York</u>
A study by the Poughkeepsie Journal in October 2006 of the state's then-new statewide database found that the list contained as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave....

<u>Tennessee</u>
In 2006, the Tennessee State Senate voted to nullify the election of Ophelia Ford after an investigation revealed that three poll workers had faked votes in her behalf, including at least two votes cast in the name of dead people. ...</div></div>

Demokrooks cannot win without the necro-american voting bloc. (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting)

eg8r
03-28-2012, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eh..no. In this case, its the Republicans who have proven themselves to be wrong.
</div></div>So then...eh..YES dillhole. In this example you are believing the results of this Rep search. In others where they prove you idiots are wrong you never believe them. What is it about comprehension that fails you every time. Again, shut the hole in your face and go back to copy/paste at least those people appear to try and comprehend before they open their holes.

eg8r

Qtec
03-29-2012, 01:03 AM
You are so dumb sometimes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In this example you are believing the results of this Rep search. </div></div>

The GOP say there is rampant voter fraud, despite the facts.
They go on an 8 year crusade to find this voter fraud and come up with nothing. They even go so far as to fire DAs who refuse to participate in this wild goose chase.

So when their 8 year investigations confirm the fact that voter fraud is rare and not a huge problem as they claim, then yes, I believe them.

In this case, the conclusion is backed by facts, not rhetoric and hot air and exactly as I and many others have predicted, so why should I not believe them?

Are you saying they DID find rampant voter fraud and are covering it up?

That would be INSANE.



Q

eg8r
03-29-2012, 09:10 AM
LOL, you are so dumb sometimes.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do we know? The Bush administration tasked their own appointed US attorneys to prove it out, find it and prosecute it. They all turned up bupkus</div></div>

Again, you seem to pick and choose when you want to believe what the Reps say and do. My guess is that this was just a bit of sarcasm.

It's a very simple test I'm using here. Statements AGAINST INTEREST are actually quite credible, even from biased sources.

Goes something like this: if EVEN X (insert biased party for X) says this, it is likely to be true (when that biased party is admitting or stating something that goes against themselves).

Does that go entirely over your head?

Qtec
03-29-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does that go entirely over your head? </div></div>

Seems so.




Q

eg8r
03-29-2012, 12:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Statements AGAINST INTEREST are actually quite credible, even from biased sources.
</div></div>And again this is only true, to you, when you "choose" to believe it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 02:30 PM
I somewhat agree with that, as I should have more carefully said, 'are actually MORE credible,' instead of quite credible.

Partially because some parties said to be partisan on a given side aren't as partisan as thought.

For instance, if someone says, 'EVEN THE NY TIMES said Saddam had WMD,' by which they meant Judith Miller's credulous re-typing of Bush adminstration 'Curveball' propaganda word for word, that does NOT make it credible, as Ms. Miller was a liar and a shill, and the NY Times is far from as liberal as it is made out to be.

Still, though, the right did take that claim from that 'biased' source as gold, at that time, and if repeated, will do so on such a matter they are supposed to be so biased on.

It's not 100% a sure thing, but it does weight disproportionately, and rightly so.

Qtec
03-29-2012, 03:04 PM
He doesn't get it.

Never will.

Q

Qtec
04-02-2012, 06:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In this example you are believing the results of this Rep search. In others <u>where they prove you idiots are wrong </u>you never believe them. </div></div>

When was that then?

You want us to believe that the people who think voter fraud is rampant and have spent 9 years investigating this - firing uncooperative DAs in the process- are now covering up said fraud?!

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Q

cushioncrawler
04-02-2012, 06:39 AM
Usofa politicians are frauds.
Usofa democratik system iz a fraud.
Every vote iz a vote for fraud.
mac.

eg8r
04-02-2012, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When was that then?
</div></div>Go through every single one of lww's post where he posts something about the Libs doing wrong and count how many times you believed what his source had to say. Are you really stupid enough to ask? LOL, with just the tiniest amount of rope you try to hang yourself.

eg8r

Qtec
04-02-2012, 07:10 AM
Unlike LWW I don't lick the spoon. Before I post anything here I do some research to see if its valid. I go by the facts. Not hot air like you do.

Q

eg8r
04-02-2012, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike LWW I don't lick the spoon.</div></div>Actually you do and are not man enough to admit it. You only quote articles that you agree with. You don't even know what a "fact" is. As long as you see it on the web you believe it.

eg8r

Qtec
04-03-2012, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You only quote articles that you agree with. </div></div>

But they are all true. Is that wrong?

Bear with me,

<span style="color: #3333FF">Romney is a habitual liar.


Yes or No?

YES OR NO?

Can you answer ONE SIMPLE question?</span>

Do you have that brain capacity?


I doubt it.




Q

LWW
04-03-2012, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike LWW I don't lick the spoon.</div></div>Actually you do and are not man enough to admit it. You only quote articles that you agree with. You don't even know what a "fact" is. As long as you see it on the web you believe it.

eg8r </div></div>

I have to defend Snoopy here.

He doesn't scour the web looking for sources.

He has the regime tell him which sources he may search from.

eg8r
04-03-2012, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But they are all true. Is that wrong?
</div></div>Apparently to those like yourself with your head in the sand I guess not.

The reason I am not answering your one simple question is that it doesn't matter if he is or isn't a liar to you. The only thing you care about is if the lying benefits you or agrees with your ideology. You have proven this time and time again by siding with lefty liars. You don't take offense to the lie, just the person that is lying.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-11-2012, 08:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
People think it's a huge issue only because the GOP has used it to pivot away from the far clearer case of their manipulation of the electronic voting machines, in typical Roveian fashion-- attacking where you are yourself most vulnerable. </div></div>

LOL.
Republicans always accuse the Dems of doing the very thing that they themselves are known for doing. That's why their big lie now is all about Liberals using the government to take away Constitutional rights, because that is precisely what they are doing, themselves.

And yes, it was Karl-The Big Liar-Rove who has perfected that strategy.

"Karl Rove was a confirming source." Robert Novak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNc-RfFK6Oc

Rove loses it when you hit him with the facts, and say that he was the confirming source.

Such liars, for Christians, huh? Only the silly fools who vote for them, fail to see them for what they are.

G.

Qtec
04-12-2012, 12:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason I am not answering your one simple question is that it doesn't matter if he is or isn't a liar to you. </div></div>

What an idiot. OF COURSE IT MATTERS.

I'm slamming him for his constant lying. <u>YOU are giving him a free pass, even when you admit he is a habitual liar, on idealogical grounds!</u>

Q

Qtec
04-12-2012, 12:25 AM
Welcome back G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans always accuse the Dems of doing the very thing that they themselves are known for doing. </div></div>

Too right! Apparently, its Obama waging a war on women, not the GOP!

Q.... Maddow (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47024177#47011815)

Gayle in MD
04-12-2012, 06:49 AM
Thanks friend. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Rachel Maddow is great!

Romney's absurd attempt to float this absurd accusation that it is President Obama, and the Dems, who are waging a war on women, won't fly.

President Obama has been the most supportive President on Women's rights and women's issues since day one of his administration, AND before he was president.

The first piece of legislation President Obama signed, from the Democratic Majority, was the Lilly Ledbedder Act, legislation created to reverse the radical RW Activist Supreme Court's ruling, which sought to remove a woman's right to sue after being discriminated against for years. Ms Ledbedder went all the way to the SCOTUS, with a clear case of sex discrimination.... unequal pay for equal work, and with ample proof that she was paid less for her work, than the men who were doing the same job, over the course of her employment with her company.

The RW radical Repubs on the court tried to say that she couldn't sue because the statute of limitations had expired, and that she continued to work there during the discrimination, should have filed sooner, even though she didn't find out about what was going on until she left! What a CROCK! Misogynistic Activist, Radical Republicans on the SCOTUS!

We have ample, documented proof of The Republican War On Women, from the Supreme Court, to the Congress, to every red state in this country, and I do not believe that all of the Republican lies in the world, will bring the women of this country to the RW table table, this time!

Romney's effort to pull his wife into the fray, OF ALL PEOPLE! He's going to use her, his Morman wife, to help paint him as a supporter of women's rights? LMAO! So absurd....it's laughable! But Romney says that she is the one, he says, who is relaying information to him from the poor and middle class women acroos this country about their economic issues, LMAO!

Anne Romney, a woman who has had a chef, a nanny, a housekeeper, and pleny of illegal aliens around to do her yard work, lol, through her whole marriage, yet she is his advosor women's economic issues, LMAO!

That is choice! Only idiot Romney could come up with that one! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif And if you believe that, then you will believe that all of those secret, hidden, multi,multi- millions he has been hiding off shore, and in Swiss Accounts, is all legal money!

"Vote for me, Romney, because I really know how to screw all of you to pieces! That's how I got rich!"

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

The RW bubble just gets wider, and more full of smoke and mirrors.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif