Anecdotal and I heard someone on the radio information doesn't phase me.

teedubbya wrote:

Yes. You have demonstrated that.

teedubbya wrote:

OK, here's two. One is VERY recent, and VERY verifible, the other is something I heard, and may or may not be true, i can't swear to it.

1) 2008- Minnesota- Al Frankin runs against Republican incumbent, loses by 700+ votes out of over a million cast ballots, demands multiple recounts. During recounts, a watchdog group investigating allegations of voting impropriety starts comparing voter registration rolls with state criminal records. After numerous recounts Al Frankin is declared the winner by 312 votes, is sworn into office as the 60th Democrat and locks out any republican chance of a fillibuster of Obamacare. the watchdog group finds 1100 possible casews of felons illegally voting in the 2008 elections. It is widely believed that they voted mostly Democrat (would YOU as a convicted felon vote for people who think you should STAY locked up? c'mon!) Out of 1100 POTENTIAL illegal votes, TO DATEthere have been 170 convictions, and there are still a few hundred cases under investigation. NOTE: To obtain a CONVICTION under this law, the prosecution NOT ONLY has to prove the felon voted illegally, but has to prove he KNEW he wasn't supposed to vote! So there are many cases where there was an illegal vote cast (probably for Franken) but no conviction, because they couldn't prove the voter knew it was illegal for him/her to vote. 170 CONVICTIONS! That narrows that margin to 142, with 1000 possible fraudulent votes still in the balance. Now we fight trying to get Obamacare repealed.

2) In 1960 Nixon/Lodge lost to Kennedy/Johnson. It was widely believed at that time that LBJ's political machine in Texas, stuffed ballot boxes, while either the Dailey Political machine or the sam Giancana crime family (depending upon whose opinion you read) delivered Cook County and thus Illinois to Kennedy. THOSE TWO STATES would have changed the results of the 1960 Presidential elections. It WAS discovered long after Nixon conceded the election that a high number of voters in one precinct of Cook County (Chicago) all lived at the same address, which coincidentally is the largest cemetary in the city (OK, I used the term 'lived' rather loosely, but it's Chicago).

If some dumb assed Democrat can't vote because he or she doesn't have an ID card, how do they buy cold remedies when they get sick You can't buy anything with psudoephedrine in it without an ID. How can they buy beer and booze and cigars/cigarettes? How can they drive a car? How can they cash a welfare check, or use their EBT card without being able from time to time PROVE they are the owner of that card? the original post said the OP was delivered by a midwife and a discrepancy on the recorded birth dates keeps them from getting an ID, what? How do you buy your cigars dude? Don't drive? I'm sure that somewhere in the courthouse there's a clerk who will issue an ID if byou can provide two or three witnesses who DO have an ID to swear an affadavit that you are who you are. Then you can do all kinds of nifty things, even when it's not election day!

CWFoster wrote:

CWF -
just a question on your Franken example. If the fraud is mostly Democrats, how did that little putz Franken end up winning? Using the numbers you cite, (1100 fraudulent votes and a 1000 vote swing in Frankens favor) repuplicans were far and away the biggest frauds.

rumraider wrote:

Your not reading it thoroughly, or you don't want to....

dubleuhb wrote:

Can you explain or is it just that your dogma is showing?

rumraider wrote:

I can see where you might draw that conclusion after reading CW's account, however one fact that was not made clear in his account is that no votes were invalidated by the investigative efforts of the watchdog group until after Franken was sworn in, and then his margin dwindled significantly and may have been entirely erroneous. Regardless, voter fraud in any direction is unacceptable to me, just like the sham that is the Electoral College vote. My one vote doesn't really count as a vote when the slight majority of downstaters determine to whom ALL of the electoral college votes for the state will be given.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

He was sworn in after multiple recounts which gave him more votes, 312 more than the incumbent when he initially had 700 less. I think that perhaps CW is projecting that the 1100 questionable votes are what took Franken from loser to winner in that election. It's possible.

Pheloniousmunk wrote:

"Try and fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are a citizen".

cacman wrote:

Ah. Thank you.

rumraider wrote:

You're welcome. I couldn't stand anymore of your coyness, you telegraphed what you wanted in your first post. Let me guess, you're a liberal? They seem to be the people most likely to think that they're so much smarter than the people they are surrounded by that noone will notice their schemes.

The outcome of that particular election could have been much simpler with solid voter ID laws in place and executed. Furthermore, for the incumbent to run such a close race against a challenger pretty much tells us that the people of Mn. thought he sucked, but they must have thought Franken sucked pretty well as badly. Bet they'd love to have a redo on that election.

Pheloniousmunk wrote: