Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And Speaking of Voter Fraud...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    Not really, the voter fraud myth pushes the narrative that elections are influenced by fraudulent behaviour.

    If anything the OP reinforces reality; that fraud is rare and there are measures in place to capture it.
    Interestingly, when it came to the whole charade of "Russian influence in the 2016 POTUS race/voting" the only way it would have mattered or been of consequence would be if "the Russians" had managed to change votes or vote counting to Trump's benefit. Otherwise any "influence" is highly subjective, around the issue of could the Russians change the minds and intentions of voters, which some might say borders on the edges of "conspiracy theory".

    Speaking of that whole 2016 POTUS election fiasco of "the Russians" 'helping Trump win', keeps invoking memories of a film comedy from the 1960s;

    The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming

    ...
    The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming is a 1966 American comedy film directed and produced by Norman Jewison for the Mirisch Company. It is based on the 1961 Nathaniel Benchley novel The Off-Islanders, and was adapted for the screen by William Rose.

    The film depicts the chaos following the grounding of the Soviet submarine Спрут (pronounced "sproot" and meaning "octopus") off a small New England island during the Cold War. It stars Carl Reiner, Eva Marie Saint, Alan Arkin in his first major film role, Brian Keith, Theodore Bikel, Jonathan Winters, John Phillip Law, Tessie O'Shea, and Paul Ford. It was shot by cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc in DeLuxe Color and Panavision.

    The film was released by United Artists on May 25, 1966, to critical acclaim.[3] At the 24th Golden Globe Awards, the film won in two categories (Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Arkin), and was nominated for four Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actor for Arkin, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Editing).
    ...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ru...ans_Are_Coming

    https://www.google.com/search?client...ans+are+coming

    Last edited by G David Bock; 16 Jul 20, 12:40.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • #17
      Another reference for the movie mentioned above;
      https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rus...ans_are_coming


      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Interestingly, when it came to the whole charade of "Russian influence in the 2016 POTUS race/voting" the only way it would have mattered or been of consequence would be if "the Russians" had managed to change votes or vote counting to Trump's benefit. Otherwise any "influence" is highly subjective, around the issue of could the Russians change the minds and intentions of voters, which some might say borders on the edges of "conspiracy theory".

        Speaking of that whole 2016 POTUS election fiasco of "the Russians" 'helping Trump win', keeps invoking memories of a film comedy from the 1960s;

        The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming

        ...
        The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming is a 1966 American comedy film directed and produced by Norman Jewison for the Mirisch Company. It is based on the 1961 Nathaniel Benchley novel The Off-Islanders, and was adapted for the screen by William Rose.

        The film depicts the chaos following the grounding of the Soviet submarine Спрут (pronounced "sproot" and meaning "octopus") off a small New England island during the Cold War. It stars Carl Reiner, Eva Marie Saint, Alan Arkin in his first major film role, Brian Keith, Theodore Bikel, Jonathan Winters, John Phillip Law, Tessie O'Shea, and Paul Ford. It was shot by cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc in DeLuxe Color and Panavision.

        The film was released by United Artists on May 25, 1966, to critical acclaim.[3] At the 24th Golden Globe Awards, the film won in two categories (Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy and Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Arkin), and was nominated for four Academy Awards (Best Picture, Best Actor for Arkin, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Editing).
        ...


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ru...ans_Are_Coming

        https://www.google.com/search?client...ans+are+coming
        That's's electoral interference, not fraud.

        Comment


        • #19
          Great movie, by the way.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

            Interestingly, when it came to the whole charade of "Russian influence in the 2016 POTUS race/voting" the only way it would have mattered or been of consequence would be if "the Russians" had managed to change votes or vote counting to Trump's benefit. Otherwise any "influence" is highly subjective, around the issue of could the Russians change the minds and intentions of voters, which some might say borders on the edges of "conspiracy theory"
            Well, Whitaker Walt, your premise is flawed if not just plain nonsense. Read Mueller's report and listen to his congressional testimony, and the fact of Russian interference in 2016 is real and clearly demonstrated.

            Nice try with the red herring.

            And to keep insisting that Russian interference was a 'charade' denotes support, unwitting or not, of what the Russians did.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #21
              So, the Washington State 2004 Governor's Election as an examination of possible "election fraud" ....

              ABSTRACT
              Of sorts, or "spill the beans" short cut to the chase ...

              The 2004 Governor's race had the GOP winner doing such via a very slim margin, about 130 votes, enough to trigger state laws regarding recount to validate the election. Seems it boiled down to one county out of the 39, King, where city of Seattle is located. As with most urban areas/centers, tends to lean Left/Democrat and the Auditor's office overseeing elections for the county was staffed by those predominately of Left/Democrat partisan political persuasion. After stumbling about in many directions, finding "lost" ballots, and assorted recounts, when dust settled the original winner, Republican, was no longer and the Democrat was the winner, again by about a 130 vote lead.

              That's the quick, down, dirty, and short story. Following are some excerpts, mostly from the Wiki article on this, that will show the convolutions that entailed.
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              The 2004 Washington gubernatorial election on November 2, 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and extremely close finish. In what was notable for being among the closest political races in United States election history, Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner in the initial automated count and again in the subsequent automated recount. It was not until after the third count, a second recount done by hand, that Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, took the lead by a margin of 129 votes.

              Although Gregoire was sworn in as Governor of Washington on January 12, 2005, Rossi did not formally concede and called for a re-vote over concerns about the integrity of the election. The Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court contesting the election, but the trial judge ruled against it, citing lack of evidence of deliberate electoral sabotage.[1] Rossi chose not to appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court, formally conceding the election on June 6, 2005.
              [ Two factors begin to emerge here; volume of evidence needed to establish proof, and "bias from the bench" of whom the presiding judge might be.]
              --- What had been going on with our Primary system during the previous few years had some factor ... ----

              The 2004 election cycle was the first in Washington to use a party-line ballot system of holding primary elections. The state had a long tradition of using blanket primaries, where the candidates of all political parties appear together on the same ballot for all voters. In this system, the leading vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. Washington's voters are not registered by party affiliation and a voter could participate in selecting candidates for more than one party, although the voter could only choose one candidate (of whatever party) for each office.

              In February 2004 the United States Supreme Court declined to review a lower court decision striking down the blanket primary as unconstitutional, based on it violating the rights of the parties to freedom of association under the First Amendment. Washington was thus forced to devise a new primary election system. The state legislature passed a bill providing that the top two vote-getters for each office in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of which political party they belonged to. Voters would still be allowed to vote for any candidate as before. However, this measure was vetoed by Governor Gary Locke in favor of a Montana-style system that requires voters to choose a ballot for one specific party and vote only on that party's candidates in the primary.
              ....
              Initial results

              Washington is unusual for a U.S. state in that it only requires that an absentee ballot be postmarked by the day of the election to be valid, while most other states require the ballot to have arrived at the election office by that time. Due to this as well as the state's high number of absentee ballots—more than 60% of all King County voters voted absentee—the initial result of the election was not known until November 17, the last day under state law for election results to be certified by each county's election officials.

              The initial result, as reported by Secretary of State Sam Reed, showed Rossi with a lead of 261 votes, well within the margin for an automatic machine recount pursuant to Washington state law (less than 0.5% and less than 2,000 votes). After a statewide recount completed on November 24, Rossi again came away with the lead, this time by 42 votes.
              .....
              After Rossi was certified as the victor on November 29, the Washington State Secretary of State said that "a manual recount was almost a certainty." This view was shared by the Gregoire campaign, with campaign spokesman Morton Brilliant saying that "if all the ballots aren't counted, we will go through the next four years with one candidate's supporters not believing the winner was legitimately elected." and that it was "worth taking three weeks to have four years of legitimacy, and that's what is at stake."[11]

              In Washington, a candidate may request one hand count or machine count, provided that they pay for the estimated cost of the recount up front.[12] If a manual recount overturns the outcome of an election, the state will then refund the money to the candidate.[12] On December 3, the Washington State Democratic Party gave a $730,000 check to the Secretary of State for the statewide manual recount of nearly 3 million ballots. ...
              ....
              King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips was at a Democratic Party office in Seattle on Sunday December 12, reviewing a list of voters whose absentee votes had been rejected due to signature problems, when to his surprise he found his own name listed. Phillips said he was certain he had filled out and signed his ballot correctly, and asked the county election officials to investigate the discrepancy. They discovered that Phillips' signature had somehow failed to be scanned into the election computer system after he submitted his request for an absentee ballot. Election workers claimed that they had received Phillips' absentee ballot in the mail, but they could not find his signature in the computer system to compare to the one on the ballot envelope, so they mistakenly rejected the ballot instead of following the standard procedure of checking it against the signature of Phillips' physical voter registration card that was on file. The discovery prompted King County Director of Elections Dean Logan to order his staff to search the computers to see if any other ballots had been incorrectly rejected.

              Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[14] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.

              Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C.[15] There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[15] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.
              ["discovered' or "fabricated" remains an unresolved issue to some. Either way, these "county workers" are not very competent in their job, showing legendary ineptitude of "guv'mint workers". Reportedly majority of them are/vote Democrat. ]
              ...
              Final results


              The state Democratic party claimed on December 21 that the result of the manual recount, including King County's votes, placed Gregoire ahead by eight votes across the state. Later, on December 22, the preliminary recount results put Gregoire at a ten-vote lead.

              Washington state law allows for election officials to evaluate voter intent and correct ballots so that the machines can properly read them. For example, on a Scantron or other optical ballot, an election official might fill in a circle that was not properly marked so that the machine may record the vote. Republicans filed a federal lawsuit to stop the visual examination of ballots, claiming that it is not allowed under federal law (Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment). The Republican Party was contending that the method King County was using was different from that of other counties, therefore treating voters in King County differently from those in others. However, the court ruled that this was not the case, as King County was counting their ballots in a manner similar to that of other counties.

              A Pierce County Superior Court judge ruled that ballots should not be counted, but on December 22, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that counties explicitly have the ability to correct ballot consideration errors made during earlier counts. Of those 732 ballots, 566 were accepted as having valid signatures and were added to the existing total on December 23. The final results of the hand count, as of December 23,[19] had Christine Gregoire ahead by 130 votes, which was later revised to 129 when it was discovered that Thurston County had added a vote after certification had been completed.[20] Since the recount results were in favor of the party requesting the recount, the Democrats were reimbursed the recount costs they had advanced to the state.
              ...
              Republican leaders in Washington claimed there were enough disputed votes to change the outcome of the election and filed a lawsuit in Chelan County Superior Court in order to avoid having the case heard in the more liberal Western Washington counties.[21] King County's election department (the greater Seattle area) was also targeted for how they handled the ballots, including untracked use of a "ballot-on-demand" printing machine. Also, ballots in six counties were discovered after the initial count and included in the recounts, the most being from King County. The judge hearing the lawsuit ruled that the Party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible votes, or for whom they were cast, to enable the court to overturn the election.

              Controversy over the election's outcome continued after the certification of the hand recount results. The Washington State Republican Party called into question the discrepancy between the list of voters casting ballots in King County (895,660) and the number of ballots reported in the final hand recount (899,199). They claimed that hundreds of votes, including votes by felons,[22] deceased voters,[23] and double voters,[23] were included in the canvass. As an explanation, election officials claimed that they had yet to finalize the list at the time, and argued that discrepancies in the two numbers are common and do not necessarily indicate fraud. As the election officials had expected, once the two lists were completed on January 5, the two numbers were indeed very close to one another. Also on January 5, 2005, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published an article investigating votes in King County apparently cast by dead people.[24] The PI uncovered eight cases of votes attributed to dead people; these included one administrative error, two ballots cast by the spouses of recently deceased voters (one who voted against Gregoire), one case of a husband apparently voting his dead wife's ballot instead of his own, and a man who legally voted his absentee ballot and then died before election day. One dead woman was marked as having voted in person at the polls.[24]

              By law, the result of the election can be contested by any individual who files suit at any time up to 10 days after any inauguration, thereby making January 22 the latest date to have filed any suit. Two private citizens filed challenges to the election on January 6: Daniel P. Stevens of Fall City and Arthur Coday, Jr. of Shoreline. The Republican party filed a suit on January 7 in Chelan County claiming that voters had been deprived of their right to a "free and fair election", and demanding a revote by special election. While the evidence focused especially on problems in King County, adjacent Chelan was chosen as the venue because it was more solidly Republican and the GOP questioned the ability of King County judges to rule impartially in such a case.
              ...
              Epilogue

              The 2004 election became a focus of media attention again in early 2007 when news broke that eight federal prosecutors including John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, had been fired. Republicans had hoped that after the election McKay would begin a federal investigation into alleged voter fraud, but he did not; McKay stated afterward that he would not convene a grand jury for purely political reasons and emphasized he had not seen any evidence of voter fraud in the Governor's race.
              ....
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_W...orial_election




              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
              Present Current Events are the Future's History

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                Well, Whitaker Walt, your premise is flawed if not just plain nonsense. Read Mueller's report and listen to his congressional testimony, and the fact of Russian interference in 2016 is real and clearly demonstrated.

                Nice try with the red herring.

                And to keep insisting that Russian interference was a 'charade' denotes support, unwitting or not, of what the Russians did.
                I've yet to see where their "interference" changed any ballots or vote counts, so rather ineffectual efforts. About the same as the many partisan political ads have any "influence" on elections.

                Speaking of Russians, believe it was Stalin btw that said, paraphrse;
                "Doesn't matter whom the people vote for, what matters is whom counts the votes."
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • #23
                  Is is time to raise the dead already?
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    Who is the ubiquitous 'they'? What I have seen on this forum is the Trump supporters saying that voter fraud is rampant in the US without any sourcing or support. Those that disagree have said, if I recall correctly, that it is neither rampant nor widespread.

                    It looks to me that you are either misrepresenting what was said or constructing a strawman argument.

                    Perhaps this will help you:

                    https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

                    As well as this:

                    https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...er-fraud-fraud

                    Many states have moved toward voting by mail for the 2020 elections due to pandemic concerns, leaving only seven states lacking this option for all voters. Members of Congress have called for national legislation for a vote-by-mail option for federal elections this year, which would cover the remaining states. President Trump and some other Republicans have resisted, arguing that mail voting risks election fraud. There’s little empirical evidence to back up this fraud claim, but there have been enough instances of absentee ballot fraud over the years to make it worth a look.

                    Evidence for the pro-vote-by-mail side may come from an unlikely source: A database of fraud cases maintained by a conservative think tank that raises alarms over voter fraud and is decidedly not in the pro-mail ballot camp. Its data suggests that mail ballot related fraud is actually more common in states that restrict absentee voting than in other states.

                    The Heritage Foundation is an established conservative think tank. It has long raised the alarm about the perceived dangers of voter fraud, most notably as a justification for strict voter photo identification laws for in-person voting. But they have also spoken out against mail-in voting, suggesting, among several complaints, that it raises an unacceptable risk of fraud.

                    https://www.demos.org/sites/default/...s/Analysis.pdf

                    https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/tr...isinformation/

                    President Donald Trump continues to add false and exaggerated statements to his already lengthy list of bogus voter fraud claims.
                    • There is no evidence to back up Trump’s blanket claim that “mailed ballots are corrupt.” Voting experts say the president is exaggerating when he says mail ballots are “fraudulent in many cases.” While the instances of voter fraud via mail-in or absentee ballots are more common than in-person voting fraud, the number of known cases is relatively rare.
                    • Trump also falsely claimed that California reached a settlement with Judicial Watch in which the state “agree[d] that a million people should not have voted.” California and Los Angeles County agreed to remove inactive voters from their voter rolls per federal law. But there’s no evidence any of them voted, fraudulently or otherwise.
                    • And as he has in the past, Trump claimed there’s “a lot of fraudulent voting going on in this country.” Experts say voter fraud is rare.

                    Trump’s latest round of voter fraud claims came as Wisconsin struggled with an election at a time when residents were wary of going to polls during the coronavirus pandemic.

                    Some Wisconsin Democrats, including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, urged to hold the election by mail and suspend in-person voting. Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers tried to move the state’s April 7, but after a Republican challenge, the state Supreme Court ruled the governor’s decision was unconstitutional and the election went off as scheduled on April 7 with long lines and fewer polling places.

                    With uncertainty about the safety of voting in the presidential election November, some Democrats have called for mail-in voting to be considered as an alternative. Former Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has suggested that a mail-in ballot should be sent to every voter in the country.

                    The "they" is including, but not limited to, the NYT and Boston Globe whose articles I linked above.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                      That's's electoral interference, not fraud.
                      Specific details please, such as which ballots changed, which vote tallies altered, etc.
                      a.k.a. evidence of physical effects, not conspiracy theory mumble-jumble wishful thinking of sore-losers.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                      Present Current Events are the Future's History

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post

                        Well, Whitaker Walt, your premise is flawed if not just plain nonsense. Read Mueller's report and listen to his congressional testimony, and the fact of Russian interference in 2016 is real and clearly demonstrated.

                        Nice try with the red herring.

                        And to keep insisting that Russian interference was a 'charade' denotes support, unwitting or not, of what the Russians did.
                        Well 'Joe McCarthy'; I haven't time to waste wading through Mueller's report so waiting for the Cliff's Notes or someone to provide excerpts of where(how) "The Russians" altered ballots or changed vote tallies to help Trump win.

                        So far I see a fabricated, paid for by a political party, "dossier" by a former 'spook', that snowballed into a waste of taxpayer money "investigation" producing no evidence of crime by Russia or it's "agents" in making American voters chose Trump over S-Hillary.

                        So no "red herring" IMO. In fact, I could probably make a better case for extra-planetary, non-Earth "Aliens" impacting and influencing human history and events than the Steele dossier did in showing how Russia changed ballots and vote counts in the 2016 elections to make Trump win.

                        Fact that Hillary was a scank/sleazy in minds of most voters had more to bear than facade/canard of "Russian Interference".

                        I don't support any other nation interfering with our elections, but I don't put "influence" on the same level as "interference".

                        Christopher Steele ordered to pay damages over 'inaccurate' dossier claims
                        Last edited by G David Bock; 16 Jul 20, 20:54. Reason: add thread link to relevant item
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                        Present Current Events are the Future's History

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Another example that comes to mind is "motor-voter" wherein applying for and getting a state's driver's license can also automatically register one to vote. !!! This can happen either via a new or renew/change. For example,moved up here from California and have a CA driver's license, that plus proof of residence in WA (like a utility bill) and you get one of our driver's licenses; plus the option to register to vote! No proof of citizenship asked or requested! Just sign an affidavit that you are a citizen ... ...

                          We have such here in Washington(WA) State, means by which non-citizens/illegal immigrants, can get registered to vote. Show ID from another state, like their driver's license and "proof" of residence in this state; like a utility bill; and "one" can not only get a driver's license(ID) for this state; but also be offered to register to vote. Proof of citizenship is not required, just signing an affidavit that you are a citizen and legal to vote is all that is required,no background check-up will follow.

                          Now if you want something other than the BASIC Driver's License, like ID to cross the border into Canada, the you need the next level of "Enhanced Driver's License" where proof of citizenship will be required.

                          Bottom line remains that we in WA-state can get illegal/un-licensed, non-citizen voters on our roles and having an impact on our local as well as national elections.

                          And as past results have shown, only scores of vote differences can have impacting results.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                          Present Current Events are the Future's History

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                            Another example that comes to mind is "motor-voter" wherein applying for and getting a state's driver's license can also automatically register one to vote. !!! This can happen either via a new or renew/change. For example,moved up here from California and have a CA driver's license, that plus proof of residence in WA (like a utility bill) and you get one of our driver's licenses; plus the option to register to vote! No proof of citizenship asked or requested! Just sign an affidavit that you are a citizen ... ...

                            We have such here in Washington(WA) State, means by which non-citizens/illegal immigrants, can get registered to vote. Show ID from another state, like their driver's license and "proof" of residence in this state; like a utility bill; and "one" can not only get a driver's license(ID) for this state; but also be offered to register to vote. Proof of citizenship is not required, just signing an affidavit that you are a citizen and legal to vote is all that is required,no background check-up will follow.

                            Now if you want something other than the BASIC Driver's License, like ID to cross the border into Canada, the you need the next level of "Enhanced Driver's License" where proof of citizenship will be required.

                            Bottom line remains that we in WA-state can get illegal/un-licensed, non-citizen voters on our roles and having an impact on our local as well as national elections.

                            And as past results have shown, only scores of vote differences can have impacting results.

                            Another way they do it is the change of address request at the post office. When you fill out the form to forward your mail to your new place, you'll suddenly get bombarded with voting literature at your new address!


                            “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                              Specific details please, such as which ballots changed, which vote tallies altered, etc.
                              a.k.a. evidence of physical effects, not conspiracy theory mumble-jumble wishful thinking of sore-losers.
                              I never said those things happened, nice try though.

                              You got a problem with that conclusion take it with your own countries intelligence community.

                              Bye

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                I've yet to see where their "interference" changed any ballots or vote counts, so rather ineffectual efforts. About the same as the many partisan political ads have any "influence" on elections.

                                Speaking of Russians, believe it was Stalin btw that said, paraphrse;
                                "Doesn't matter whom the people vote for, what matters is whom counts the votes."
                                So now you are comparing the US to Stalin's Russia/Soviet Union? That is both ludicrous and disingenuous and clearly demonstrates a lack of historical understanding.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X