Posted - 7/26/2012 8:00:45 PM | show profile | flag this post
To recap what I posted yesterday:
It was reported that in Virginia, a leftist organization sent out thousands of pre-printed voter regisration applications and many were addressed to dead people, children, family pets, illegals, etc.
Update: Turns out that the return address that purports to be that of the state board of equalization (where voter registration forms are to be sent) is bogus. The ADDRESS is correct but the ZIP Code causes the forms to be sent somwhere else. Who knows where? And why?
The organization that is sending out these bogus voter registration forms...the very leftist Voter Participation Center, funded in part by George Soros...is doing so NOT just in Virginia but in SEVERAL OTHER STATES...all battleground states for the upcoming election.
These so-called voter registration forms contain a great deal of personal information including full legal names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, etc. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THIS ORGANIZATION NEED THIS PRIVATE INFORMATION IF NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING ELECTION FRAUD IN THESE BATTLEGROUND STATES?
Posted - 7/26/2012 8:51:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** a leftist organization ***
An organization founded to register single women. If that's not a sign of leftism, nothing is.
Posted - 7/26/2012 9:02:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
Louisa felon illegally registered after receiving form from Voter Participation Center
LOUISA, Va. --
A felon living in Louisa County registered to vote illegally and then cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election after filling out and submitting a voter-registration form she received by mail from the Voter Participation Center, a state senator who prosecuted the case confirmed Wednesday.
Posted - 7/26/2012 9:49:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
with radical leftist ideals will get a pass from grateful dud.
Posted - 7/27/2012 8:48:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
Have any of these voted?
The purpose of the registration process is to weed out errors like those cruzo cited.
The fact remains that actual voter fraud is so tiny it is unable to influence any federal election.
Since 2000, there have only been a handful of actual cases of voter fraud -- and most were dismissed as mistakes (a person accidently voting in a neighboring precient instead of his own).
The rate is less than a single vote per state per election since 2000.
That is no reason to disenfranchise millions of America voters -- as current Voter ID laws aim to do.
Posted - 7/27/2012 2:12:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
Good One SPC
That's one, of possibly millions, or a couple of examples of voter fraud and stolen elections.
The evidence can't be denied, even if there isn't any.
Posted - 7/27/2012 2:26:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
Doonesbury has been skewering...
the Voter ID laws with the "Jimmy Crow Comeback Tour" all this week.
Among the things pointed out:
-- Maine GOPers pushed a VID law even though there have only been TWO cases of vote fraud in 38 years. Just TWO ballots.
--Pennsylvania GOPers passed a VID law even though there has not been a SINGLE case in the last 8 years.
--Florida tried to purge 750,000 names from voter rolls, even though 20% of those names -- 150,000 voters -- were legally eligible voters.
Posted - 7/27/2012 8:50:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruiser doesn't know the voter-registration process.
But he knows how to call other posters his little made-up names.
How's that MENSA-level IQ doing for you, cruiser?
Posted - 7/27/2012 8:53:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
In fact, we all should REJOICE that cruiser is only a garden-variety bulletin-board ranter, not a media professional.
Can you imagine? (More to the point, can you imagine him lasting one minute in a newsroom? Sheesh!)
Posted - 7/27/2012 9:45:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
No knowledge, no capability
The only thing she can do is hurl ad hominem. What a pity.
Posted - 7/28/2012 12:23:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** The only thing she can do is hurl ad hominem. What a pity. ***
I know, huh?
You gave yourself special dispensation to refer to me as "grateful dud," but you didn't give me permission to call you on it.
Posted - 7/28/2012 12:24:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
Seriously, cruiser, see your doctor. You need help with controlling your anger.
Posted - 7/28/2012 1:23:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
I am going to file that comment away.....
"The fact remains that actual voter fraud is so tiny it is unable to influence any federal election." I guess all that outcry after the 2000 and 2008 elections was just partisan whining. Does that also apply to those special elections in Minnesota?
Posted - 7/28/2012 1:25:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not anger. Joy. He can always count on you.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the PRIMARY INTENT OF PROVOKING READERS into an emotional response."
Posted - 7/28/2012 2:14:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Just a few minor points...I still agree with etaoin on this one; "The fact remains that actual voter fraud is so tiny it is unable to influence any federal election."
cruise keeps harping on "registration", and not "actual voting", obviously two totally different actions.
And re: "I guess all that outcry after the 2000 and 2008 elections was just partisan whining." 'Voter fraud' was most definitely NOT the issue in Bush v Gore. Gore won the popular vote (50,999,897 48.38% to Bush's 50,456,002 47.87%), the outcry was over the actions of both the SCOTUS and Kathleen Harris. I don't remember anyone raising a stink over 'Bush won because of dead people voting' or any other kind of fraud.
And I don't remember a huge stink in 2008 either. Obama cleaned McCain's clock. Steve Schmidt (and others) were pissed about Palin, sure, but voter fraud was not an issue.
I think you would have to go back to 1960 to find a case where accusations of actual fraud were tossed around...(with substance I might add) JFK stole Chicago, hence Illinois etc etc. On the other hand, it's often said Nixon was just as guilty elsewhere, so both sides let it drop.
Just my two cents.
Posted - 7/28/2012 2:37:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
First I was wrong, it was the 2004 not the 2008 election (there is never any cries of election fraud when a democrat wins :-)
Here are some links to remind you regarding both the 2000 and 2004 election.
In fact just type in election fraud 2004 or 2000 on Google and you will get page after page of links. Glad to see that both you and etaion agree it is all crap.
Posted - 7/28/2012 3:54:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
Ok, point taken;
There was some noise about 'vote fraud' in the two elections you cited. I was just saying the HUGE controversy was over the count/don't count and Harris and SCOTUS, not registering dead people or stuffing ballot boxes.
And really..."just type in election fraud 2004 or 2000 on Google and you will get page after page of links" Lord knows we would never count on the internet as a reliable source for anything... :-)
Posted - 7/28/2012 6:38:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
The one thing you can count on the internet for is providing a long list of conspiracy sites. I just wanted to congratulate etaion and now you for not buying into any of it. I was especially surprised by etaion, I could have sworn there were several cries of voter fraud made in conjunction with the recall vote in Wisconsin. Great to know there was no fraud involved.
Posted - 7/28/2012 7:00:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The fact remains that actual voter fraud is so tiny it is unable to influence any federal election."
Democrats Christine Gregoire and Loretta Sanchez got elected thanks to illegals and the dead voting.
Posted - 7/28/2012 7:16:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Lord knows we would never
count on the internet as a reliable source for anything"
The Internet is NOT a source. It is an aggregator and cataloger. The "sources" are those items toward which the Internet points.
But be that as it may, you left wingers use Internet-derived sources all the time as "proof" or "justification" for your wacky ideas and beliefs. Apparently you DO see it as reliable.
But at the same time you try to scorn and ridicule those cited by conservatives.
Double standard much?
Posted - 7/28/2012 7:24:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
"'registration', and not 'actual voting'
obviously two totally different actions"
You have a modicum of smarts...I think. Riddle me this:
What would be the purpose of registration if not followed up by voting? Why in the world would your party engage in rampant fraudulent registration (which you apparently blow off as nothing) but eschew fraudulent voting?
The fact is, it wouldn't.
Posted - 7/28/2012 8:09:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
get a grip will ya?
"What would be the purpose of registration if not followed up by voting?"
We're all familiar with the stories of Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, and (don't ask me why) the late Paul Newman registered to vote. Did you think they were actually going to show up to vote?????
"...you left wingers use Internet-derived sources all the time as "proof" or "justification" for your wacky ideas and beliefs."
You STARTED this thread citing TWO internet stories concerning REGISTRATION--NOT VOTING. We have trie to get htrough to you there is a huge monstrous all important difference.
There is still no evidence of any king anywhere that there is massive illegal VOTING going on....and most certainly not on the 'Presidential election level'.
'Charges of.....' and 'allegations of.........' doesn't mean squat.
Posted - 7/28/2012 9:15:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
For posters in this thread, here is information from the California Secretary of State as an example:
(The following paragraphs appear in The Secretary of State's Guide to Voter Registration Drives -- I did not write them, so if you have an issue with them, please contact the California Secretary of State's office.)
Information on VRCs is Confidential
Personal information provided on VRCs is confidential, but is required by law to be released to people who intend to use that information for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. However, the driver’s license, identification card or social security number and the voter’s signature will not be released, even for the uses listed above. (Elections Code § 2194.)
The voter registration file may be purchased from the county or from the Secretary of State for the above-listed purposes only. The voter registration file may not be used for commercial purposes. (Elections Code § 2194.)
A person wishing to order a copy of the voter registration file must complete an application that requires them to provide their driver’s license or state identification card number. The person applying must also show their identification to the elections office to verify their identity.
If a person or an organization in charge of the voter registration drive discloses a driver’s license number, identification card number and/or social security number from a VRC to someone other than an elections official or the person or organization in charge of the voter registration drive, that person is guilty of an infraction. The infraction is punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500). (Elections Code §§ 2138.5, 18111.)
Posted - 7/28/2012 9:20:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
Here is a paragraph about who can submit a voter registration card. The governing law is intended to prevent violation of civil rights:
Give a VRC to Anyone Who Requests One
Even if you are conducting a partisan voter registration drive, California law requires you to give a blank VRC to anyone who asks for one and to turn in any completed voter registration card, regardless of the person’s party preference. (Elections Code § 2158; California Code of Regulations, title 2, § 20001(g)(1).) Failure to do so is punishable by a fine. (Elections Code § 18107.)
Here is a paragraph about the penalty for falsifying a voter registration card:
VRC is Signed Under Penalty of Perjury
To be valid, a VRC must include the signature of the voter indicating they certify under penalty of perjury that the information on the card is accurate. Perjury is punishable by imprisonment for up to four years. (Penal Code §§ 118, 126.)
Posted - 7/28/2012 9:45:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
And NONE of that will prevent
fraudulent registration and/or fraudulent voting.
dogson said: "most certainly not on the 'Presidential election level'"
That's where you're wrong, pal. It's been WELL documented that Chicago mobster Sam Giancana used his union/mob ties to "deliver" the states of Illinois and West Virginia to JFK's column during the 1960 election.
That's TWO STATES, pal...fraud on a massive scale.
And since you live in Pennsylvania perhaps you're aware that several Philadelphia precincts regularly show MORE THAN 100 percent of the registered Democrats voting. The same occurs in New Jersey...and probably many other places...most often involving Democrats.
I know you'd like to either
1) Bury this so others won't become aware of it, or
2) Pretend it's not happening so you can sleep at night.