South Dakota Democratic voter fraud Indiana Democratic voter fraud Here are some classic Democrat tactics of voter fraud: 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) Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00). Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00) Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez (Christian Science Monitor, 9/2/97). 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). Phantom Voters. These voters don't really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Lousiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them (Behind the Headlines, F.R. Duplantier, 4/27/97). Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00). 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).
Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00) Do you know why they were allowed to vote? Because the Republican-controlled state tried to disenfranchise thousands of voters. http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html <I>Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a firm to vet the rolls for felons, but that may have wrongly kept thousands, particularly blacks, from casting ballots. .... If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a "scrub list" of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported "felons" provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties. Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas. Florida officials moved to put those falsely accused by Texas back on voter rolls before the election. Nevertheless, the large number of errors uncovered in individual counties suggests that thousands of eligible voters may have been turned away at the polls. Florida is the only state that pays a private company that promises to "cleanse" voter rolls. ... </I> The difference between the parties is that Democrats do it on small scales through individual precincts. Republicans just institutionalize disenfranchisement. Don't act like one party or the other is better in this arena.
But unfortunately, history is on the side of the GOP. There are so many instances of Democratic voter fraud over the last hundred years (Chicago during the 1960 presidential election, West Virginia during the 1960 Democratic Primary, etc. etc.) that I could write a Macbeth-vintage epic length post and still not cover them all in the detail they deserve. I'm not saying the GOP is perfect (of course they are not) but the Democrats are far more insidious.
Why don't we just have a Republican vs Democrat/Conservative vs Liberal sticky, and let the rest of the threads stay hijack-free?
Libs live by three rules: never stop fighting, even if you are dead wrong, lie,repeat, lie, repeat until it is believed by a majority of the population, and what's the rule of law if it gets in the way of our ascent to power? The Constitution? Piss on it if it means we can't get what we want should be the liberal mantra. Screw the rich so the only rich folks are us. Yeah......sure. Get over it......the election was THREE years ago. And what's funny is that it's all you pathetic folks have because you know that none of the 9 lame-o candidates trotted out to take on GWB have a prayer, even with the maximum, full court press Democratic voter fraud machine at full throttle. Dale Earnhardt
never stop fighting, even if you are dead wrong, lie,repeat, lie, repeat until it is believed by a majority of the population Actually, this seems like the Bush strategy for getting support for the war on Iraq. The Constitution? Piss on it if it means we can't get what we want That sounds like the Ashcroft philosophy on law enforcement.
bamaslammer is FOS, as usual. Have the Democrats ever rigged elections? Sure! They wrote the book on it. Without some good, old-fashioned rigging the phrases 'President Kennedy' and 'President L B Johnson' would not be in our lexicon (thanks Mayor Daley!). But this of course has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The issue is that a company, Diebold, has somehow secured contracts to provide electronic polling devices for many various elections. The company is led by a vocal Republican - nothing wrong with that, certainly, on its face - but internal memos from company staff (and I highly recommend that some of you yawners take some time to read them) make it very clear that these machines are highly imperfect, to say the least. The strong implication is that they are totally unreliable and easily manipulated. In short, it's now easier than ever to rig an election. Hell, you can do it well ahead of time if you want to. Now, I don't give a damn whom you vote for. I'm free to make up my own mind, and so are you. But doesn't it make you a little bit nervous to know that the potential for mischief is so readily available? Let's say Kerry wins. (I do not want this, btw.) Do you want to sit around wondering if he got more votes or rather the puppetmaster decided that he needed to be inserted? Anyway, get this: Cute, huh?
AND HE QUOTES DALE EARNHARDT! Ahhhh, ha ha ha ha ha! Awesome! Lady Asphalt is a cruel mistress, huh bs? (A more convenient contraction could not have been hoped for.)
At least you admit their fraud, I will give you that point. But you also dismiss it as a thing of the past, which it is not. If something works for you, why not keep doing it? They have and will do so again in 2004. How else can you explain the strangely high levels of voter participation ( in the eighties and ninety percent ranges) in several urban, poor areas that always go Democrat (since the Dems buy their votes with their b.s. giveaways out of my pocket). Easy! Since even countries where it's against the law NOT to vote don't have 90 percent participation, it leads down the path of FRAUD. But fortunately, there will have to be fraud on an epic and biblical scale (they'd have to have all the dead people of the past ten years to vote plus dogs!) to even put a dent in the Bush landslide over either unstable uber-lib Dean, aloof Kerry, monotone master Lieberman, wimpy, flip-flop General Clark, empty suit Edwards, racist liar Al Sharpton,little liar Gephardt and whack-job Kucinich. These guys have to be the worst field of candidates for any major elective office in history and 2004 will reflect it, because I wouldn't trust these people bagging groceries, much less being in charge of our nation and our fight against terror.
bama, do you really want us to find examples of the Republican's shenanigans when it comes to voter fraud and disenfranchisement? I mean, we're trying to keep this civil, but all your arguments turn into calling people socialists and accusing the party of nationwide voter fraud on the strength of a couple of incidents that nobody is denying in here. I mean, I know you think that we are all personally involved in what happened in those places and want us to personally answer for those things, but uh, we weren't involved.
NOTE: It's only fraud if the *other* guys do it. But that's not the point of this thread. We're putting America's most cherished institution into the hands of a corporation that has obvious conflicts of interest and a terrible track record on security, accuracy and reliability (see Florida 2000 fiasco). Hell, they're using 1985 processing chips! Security is so bad, experts say ANY well-placed hacker can determine the outcome of a presidential election. Think about that. One hacker (Democrat, Republican or other) could install the next President of the United States. That's a horrifying thought. And the worst part? We won't be able to verify the results. No record is kept. Americans deserve better than this.
And we want to go to electronic voting machines without any paper ballot whatsofriggingever? Hell no. There are entirely too many nerds out there too smart for their own damned good who could compromise it. On that we agree for sure. But you have these libs crying ......."oh, the butterfly ballot is so difficult." What is so difficult about lining up the hole with your chosen candidate's name and punching a little hole by it cleanly with a stick? If it is a problem, you should not vote. And on that "disenfranchisement" mularkey of Florida 2000, they cite all these people that were purged seemingly in some evil GOP plot to get rid of core Democratic voters, but you never get any specific folks come forward to say that I could not vote for whateve reason. And besides, do they have any concrete numbers? Of course not. To me, that is not disenfranchisement if it is not a systematic thing (like all the likely Democratic voters would not be allowed to vote). I know they complained about how they changed polling places, it was so confusing, the ballot was hard......wahhhhhhh. Well, you know what the libs were saying about their core voters, do you? Our core voters are so damned stupid they can't find out where their polling place (you have it on your voting card and if it changes, you get a notice in the mail if you are registered), can't figure out how to punch a hole in a little card by the right name and didn't realize that they either did not register or had committed a felony, thus making them persona non grata.
I've considered it since I don't think I can have a proper discussion or anything, but I don't like to use the ignore list. Especially when I hear some of my favorite posters talk about how they were jerks back in the day. I have hope for everybody. Except for some dude named rocketfat or something. I forgot why I put him on ignore, but when I peek at his posts, I'm reminded.
That's a cool idea. And in reality, the ignore list doesn't work for me. Even when I try it, I end up peeking.
Exactly why I've never bothered. Since I've been here, I've had this morbid fascination with reading what those who I disagree with the most, knowing it'll only piss me off.
