JFK never should have been President

[Dan Druff]

Democrats love to complain about the 2000 election, but they only need to look 40 years earlier to see a much more obvious case of voter fraud stealing an election.

JFK should have lost in 1960 to Nixon. Of course, had that happened, JFK would have likely lived out a full life.

If Nixon had carried Illinois and Texas, he would have won the election.

Both states had verified or highly likely instances of voter fraud. The Kennedy campaign was close with corrupt Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who held back voting totals until early in the morning, and then they came out with a staggering and highly improbable margin in Kennedy's favor -- a margin just big enough to counteract Nixon's lead in the rest of the state.

In Texas, thanks to Lyndon Johnson's influence, voting irregularities also occurred. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.

Oddly enough, perhaps not wanting to come off as a sore loser, Nixon declined to have recounts done, despite the urgings of many Republicans. Of course, Nixon ended up winning in 1968 anyway, but he couldn't have predicted that at the time.

Everyone knows the tragic story of JFK's assassination, and he is viewed with high regard by most Americans, but most don't realize that he won as a result of a corrupt and stolen election.

Remember this next time you read a story about IDing voters being "racist".

[Seth]

Clip says it all:

[ToasterOven]

People don't think the 2000 election was about voter fraud. It was about a partisan Supreme Court.

All the restrictive voter id laws are being put in place by republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote. You can find plenty of quotes by the authors of these bills where they unabashedly brag that they are making it easier for Republicans to win elections. Why are you so defensive about it? Everyone knows that if you make it harder to vote, Republicans do better. It's just a fact.

[Dan Druff]

People don't think the 2000 election was about voter fraud. It was about a partisan Supreme Court.

All the restrictive voter id laws are being put in place by republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote. You can find plenty of quotes by the authors of these bills where they unabashedly brag that they are making it easier for Republicans to win elections. Why are you so defensive about it? Everyone knows that if you make it harder to vote, Republicans do better. It's just a fact.

Why does it matter who is benefiting from it?

Why shouldn't you need ID to vote? Anyone can get ID. You need ID for everything else in life.

Rather than saying Republicans are pushing it so they do better in elections (even if they are), you can also say that Democrats are calling it "racist" so THEY can do better.

Bottom line is that, while I agree Republicans are doing this for their own good, it's something that should have been done a long time ago anyway. Just because Republicans benefit from it doesn't make it wrong.

[Dan Druff]

I just laugh at the argument of, "Voter fraud hasn't been an issue in this country."

[DirtyB]

I just laugh at the argument of, "Voter fraud hasn't been an issue in this country."

Please cite two instances of voter fraud in the US in the past 10 years.

[Dan Druff]

I just laugh at the argument of, "Voter fraud hasn't been an issue in this country."

Please cite two instances of voter fraud in the US in the past 10 years.

If the election isn't super close and high-profile, nobody looks for it.

Besides, whether it has happened recently or not, that doesn't mean you should open the door to it. Do you remember what a mess the 2000 election was? Much of the controversy came down to local procedures with vote-counting, hanging chads, recounts, and other things that nobody ever considered would be a factor in a US Presidential election.

I think it's foolish to take the attitude of, "We are going to open the door to voter fraud and only worry about it once it actually occurs. We won't bother preventing it because that could be construed as racist and/or help Republicans."

It's laughable that Democrats are actually saying that it's reasonable that people should just be able to show up to a polling place, say, "Yeah, I'm that guy, and while I can't prove it, you aren't allowed to make me prove it. Now let me vote."

Nothing else in 2014 society works like that. You always need ID.

[Seth]

I just laugh at the argument of, "Voter fraud hasn't been an issue in this country."

Please cite two instances of voter fraud in the US in the past 10 years.

Voter fraud was clear in 1960. Today, its impossible to prove. Dirty B and his crew have a huge advantage in this day of age. Anyone looking for a free ride can vote Democrat and have a chance for free cable tv.

I really have no idea why anyone making over $75,000 a year, outside the elitist, would ever vote Democrat. I get the poor and disenfranchised. But not anyone remotely successful.

The hilarious thing is under Obama the poor have got much poorer. LOL. Hope and Change.

[ToasterOven]

People don't think the 2000 election was about voter fraud. It was about a partisan Supreme Court.

All the restrictive voter id laws are being put in place by republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote. You can find plenty of quotes by the authors of these bills where they unabashedly brag that they are making it easier for Republicans to win elections. Why are you so defensive about it? Everyone knows that if you make it harder to vote, Republicans do better. It's just a fact.

Why does it matter who is benefiting from it?

Why shouldn't you need ID to vote? Anyone can get ID. You need ID for everything else in life.

Rather than saying Republicans are pushing it so they do better in elections (even if they are), you can also say that Democrats are calling it "racist" so THEY can do better.

Bottom line is that, while I agree Republicans are doing this for their own good, it's something that should have been done a long time ago anyway. Just because Republicans benefit from it doesn't make it wrong.

Why does it matter who is benefiting? Are you 5 years old? The only thing that matter is who benefits. It's not like there were a lot of cases of voter ID in recent years. So few that you went back over half a century for an example. Some olds don't have an ID for all kinds of stupid reasons.

And sometimes it's difficult to get one, apparently.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification


I'm thinking this is a problem that goes away in 10 years or so when the generation born before 1950 punches out.

[Dan Druff]

Why does it matter who is benefiting from it?

Why shouldn't you need ID to vote? Anyone can get ID. You need ID for everything else in life.

Rather than saying Republicans are pushing it so they do better in elections (even if they are), you can also say that Democrats are calling it "racist" so THEY can do better.

Bottom line is that, while I agree Republicans are doing this for their own good, it's something that should have been done a long time ago anyway. Just because Republicans benefit from it doesn't make it wrong.

Why does it matter who is benefiting? Are you 5 years old? The only thing that matter is who benefits. It's not like there were a lot of cases of voter ID in recent years. So few that you went back over half a century for an example. Some olds don't have an ID for all kinds of stupid reasons.

And sometimes it's difficult to get one, apparently.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification


I'm thinking this is a problem that goes away in 10 years or so when the generation born before 1950 punches out.

How can you say that "the only thing that matters is who benefits"?

No.

The only thing that should matter is what is right. While the Republicans benefit from voter ID and Democrats benefit from the lack of it, that shouldn't be a factor in debating whether it is right or wrong.

You are acting like elections are a surprise and/or occur every day. Even if there is some effort required to obtain an ID, you have plenty of time to obtain one, and the cost of doing so is extremely minimal, to where it shouldn't even be a factor for poor people.

If you are going to claim that requiring ID to vote is so cruel and racist, then why isn't it cruel and racist to require ID for nearly everything else in life? The "voter ID is wrong" people might as well lobby that we shouldn't need ID for anything, and should just take everyone's word for who they are. At least that line of argument would be consistent.

While voting is a right that shouldn't be denied to anyone, it also requires some effort and those not making the effort can't claim to be discriminated against. For example, if I forget to register in time, I can't claim that my rights to vote are being violated when I show up to the polling place anyway. If I get too sick on election day to leave the house to vote, I can't scream that I was a victim of discrimination that they wouldn't bring the voting to my house, or that nobody would pick me up and drive me there.

This is just an attempt by the Democrats to get extra votes from people too lazy/weird/old to bother getting ID. They know the votes will mostly go their way, so they scream "racist" and accuse Republicans of manipulating things.

[ToasterOven]

Why does it matter who is benefiting? Are you 5 years old? The only thing that matter is who benefits. It's not like there were a lot of cases of voter ID in recent years. So few that you went back over half a century for an example. Some olds don't have an ID for all kinds of stupid reasons.

And sometimes it's difficult to get one, apparently.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification


I'm thinking this is a problem that goes away in 10 years or so when the generation born before 1950 punches out.

How can you say that "the only thing that matters is who benefits"?

No.

The only thing that should matter is what is right. While the Republicans benefit from voter ID and Democrats benefit from the lack of it, that shouldn't be a factor in debating whether it is right or wrong.

You are acting like elections are a surprise and/or occur every day. Even if there is some effort required to obtain an ID, you have plenty of time to obtain one, and the cost of doing so is extremely minimal, to where it shouldn't even be a factor for poor people.

If you are going to claim that requiring ID to vote is so cruel and racist, then why isn't it cruel and racist to require ID for nearly everything else in life? The "voter ID is wrong" people might as well lobby that we shouldn't need ID for anything, and should just take everyone's word for who they are. At least that line of argument would be consistent.

While voting is a right that shouldn't be denied to anyone, it also requires some effort and those not making the effort can't claim to be discriminated against. For example, if I forget to register in time, I can't claim that my rights to vote are being violated when I show up to the polling place anyway. If I get too sick on election day to leave the house to vote, I can't scream that I was a victim of discrimination that they wouldn't bring the voting to my house, or that nobody would pick me up and drive me there.

This is just an attempt by the Democrats to get extra votes from people too lazy/weird/old to bother getting ID. They know the votes will mostly go their way, so they scream "racist" and accuse Republicans of manipulating things.

Where did I claim that requiring an ID is cruel and racist? Do you know you have a habit of assigning views to people when they haven't expressed those views?



Frankly, I just like freedom more than you. I don't want to tread on someone if they don't want to get an ID.

[Ryback_feed_me_more]

Why does it matter who is benefiting? Are you 5 years old? The only thing that matter is who benefits. It's not like there were a lot of cases of voter ID in recent years. So few that you went back over half a century for an example. Some olds don't have an ID for all kinds of stupid reasons.

And sometimes it's difficult to get one, apparently.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...identification


I'm thinking this is a problem that goes away in 10 years or so when the generation born before 1950 punches out.

How can you say that "the only thing that matters is who benefits"?

No.

The only thing that should matter is what is right. While the Republicans benefit from voter ID and Democrats benefit from the lack of it, that shouldn't be a factor in debating whether it is right or wrong.

You are acting like elections are a surprise and/or occur every day. Even if there is some effort required to obtain an ID, you have plenty of time to obtain one, and the cost of doing so is extremely minimal, to where it shouldn't even be a factor for poor people.

If you are going to claim that requiring ID to vote is so cruel and racist, then why isn't it cruel and racist to require ID for nearly everything else in life? The "voter ID is wrong" people might as well lobby that we shouldn't need ID for anything, and should just take everyone's word for who they are. At least that line of argument would be consistent.

While voting is a right that shouldn't be denied to anyone, it also requires some effort and those not making the effort can't claim to be discriminated against. For example, if I forget to register in time, I can't claim that my rights to vote are being violated when I show up to the polling place anyway. If I get too sick on election day to leave the house to vote, I can't scream that I was a victim of discrimination that they wouldn't bring the voting to my house, or that nobody would pick me up and drive me there.

This is just an attempt by the Democrats to get extra votes from people too lazy/weird/old to bother getting ID. They know the votes will mostly go their way, so they scream "racist" and accuse Republicans of manipulating things.

Voting is a right however its not a right you get to keep when your dead or legally disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Or if you are in this county illegally.. In fact last time I checked you had to be a US Citizen to vote in elections period.. The amount of democratic fraud perpetrated with dead people and those who have been allowed to register same day in many states who shouldnt be allowed to vote is why NC and other states are putting their foot down.. I lived in similar statesI know the discussions. Also as far as Im concerned college students from out of state shouldnt be voting in elections in the state they are in college if they are out of state students then they need to vote in the state they claim as residence..

[GrenadaRoger]

People don't think the 2000 election was about voter fraud. It was about a partisan Supreme Court.

All the restrictive voter id laws are being put in place by republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote. You can find plenty of quotes by the authors of these bills where they unabashedly brag that they are making it easier for Republicans to win elections. Why are you so defensive about it? Everyone knows that if you make it harder to vote, Republicans do better. It's just a fact.

2004 Election also had problems, especially in Ohio...read the 2005 Congressional Report "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio"

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/...yersreport.pdf

cliff: republicans did quite a bit to discourage voter turn out in areas expected to vote for democrats


but, as you Pol Sci 150 instructer told you, the US ruling elite do not want everyone to vote--because if that happened, the country would be far more socialist....ask yourself why the US does not fine people for not voting? Australia does, $100, and they have voter turn outs well over 90% v the US getting a heavy turn out of 65% for a presidential election...

[hutmaster]

Democrats love to complain about the 2000 election, but they only need to look 40 years earlier to see a much more obvious case of voter fraud stealing an election.

JFK should have lost in 1960 to Nixon. Of course, had that happened, JFK would have likely lived out a full life.

If Nixon had carried Illinois and Texas, he would have won the election.

Both states had verified or highly likely instances of voter fraud. The Kennedy campaign was close with corrupt Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who held back voting totals until early in the morning, and then they came out with a staggering and highly improbable margin in Kennedy's favor -- a margin just big enough to counteract Nixon's lead in the rest of the state.

In Texas, thanks to Lyndon Johnson's influence, voting irregularities also occurred. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.

Oddly enough, perhaps not wanting to come off as a sore loser, Nixon declined to have recounts done, despite the urgings of many Republicans. Of course, Nixon ended up winning in 1968 anyway, but he couldn't have predicted that at the time.

Everyone knows the tragic story of JFK's assassination, and he is viewed with high regard by most Americans, but most don't realize that he won as a result of a corrupt and stolen election.

Remember this next time you read a story about IDing voters being "racist".

The election was hotly contested afterwards in the papers and the courts. To say Nixon didn't know and took the highroad is bullshit. Right after the election Republican Party Chairman and Senator Thruston Morton called for recounts in 11 states. In many instances it was discovered that Nixon was actually credited with too many votes. There has never been conclusive evidence that thee election outcome was altered due to voter fraud (not to say that no fraud occured). The history just isn't as decided as Druff attempts to make it appear. What Druff wrote is his spin on history rather than historical fact.

[lol wow]

would you have ended up such a loser if things shook out differently vis a vis richard goatson

[MumblesBadly]

Democrats love to complain about the 2000 election, but they only need to look 40 years earlier to see a much more obvious case of voter fraud stealing an election.

JFK should have lost in 1960 to Nixon. Of course, had that happened, JFK would have likely lived out a full life.

If Nixon had carried Illinois and Texas, he would have won the election.

Both states had verified or highly likely instances of voter fraud. The Kennedy campaign was close with corrupt Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who held back voting totals until early in the morning, and then they came out with a staggering and highly improbable margin in Kennedy's favor -- a margin just big enough to counteract Nixon's lead in the rest of the state.

In Texas, thanks to Lyndon Johnson's influence, voting irregularities also occurred. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.

Oddly enough, perhaps not wanting to come off as a sore loser, Nixon declined to have recounts done, despite the urgings of many Republicans. Of course, Nixon ended up winning in 1968 anyway, but he couldn't have predicted that at the time.

Everyone knows the tragic story of JFK's assassination, and he is viewed with high regard by most Americans, but most don't realize that he won as a result of a corrupt and stolen election.

Remember this next time you read a story about IDing voters being "racist".

Uh... You are repeating a myth perpetrated by Nixon's PR machine. He just publicly played coy about the recount efforts while his allies vigorously pursued it to no avail.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/10/local/me-49741

[rum dick]

Democrats love to complain about the 2000 election, but they only need to look 40 years earlier to see a much more obvious case of voter fraud stealing an election.

JFK should have lost in 1960 to Nixon. Of course, had that happened, JFK would have likely lived out a full life.

If Nixon had carried Illinois and Texas, he would have won the election.

Both states had verified or highly likely instances of voter fraud. The Kennedy campaign was close with corrupt Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who held back voting totals until early in the morning, and then they came out with a staggering and highly improbable margin in Kennedy's favor -- a margin just big enough to counteract Nixon's lead in the rest of the state.

In Texas, thanks to Lyndon Johnson's influence, voting irregularities also occurred. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.

Oddly enough, perhaps not wanting to come off as a sore loser, Nixon declined to have recounts done, despite the urgings of many Republicans. Of course, Nixon ended up winning in 1968 anyway, but he couldn't have predicted that at the time.

Everyone knows the tragic story of JFK's assassination, and he is viewed with high regard by most Americans, but most don't realize that he won as a result of a corrupt and stolen election.

Remember this next time you read a story about IDing voters being "racist".

Who cares how he won. We are talking about nixon losing and there is only one acceptable response to that.....thank god. Just try to picture paranoid, pilled out and drunk nixon trying to handle the Cuban missile crisis.

Also the whole voted id thing had nothing to do with nixon allegedly getting robbed....the county clerks and the election officials are going to report whatever numbers they want regardless of who shows up.

[donkdowndonedied]

Getting an id is cheap when you can afford free time during government hours. Druff takes the statist view but then hides behind claims of preferring small government. It is the same old tired shit from his type.

It is also a huge fallacy that all that is required for ID is a simple $15 trip. One has to maintain the proof of residency stuff in many states and that can be cumbersome for many. Cellphones are often prepaid, bank accounts can be pre-paid cards, etc.

[MumblesBadly]

Getting an id is cheap when you can afford free time during government hours. Druff takes the statist view but then hides behind claims of preferring small government. It is the same old tired shit from his type.

It is also a huge fallacy that all that is required for ID is a simple $15 trip. One has to maintain the proof of residency stuff in many states and that can be cumbersome for many. Cellphones are often prepaid, bank accounts can be pre-paid cards, etc.

You ain't kidding. And the GOP fraudsters who claim it is to prevent voter fraud fully know that. Because it shouldn't take having to dance in the White House with the First Couple in order to get an ID.

[Dan Druff]

Notice that liberals who claim that it's "racist" to require ID to vote always cite how difficult it supposedly is to get an ID, yet they never propose fixing that situation. Instead, they use it as an ongoing excuse for why ID should not be required to vote.

This is because these same liberals know that, no matter how easy the process becomes to acquire an ID, some people still won't bother. And since those without an ID overwhelmingly vote Democrat, they don't want to lose those people from the polls.

Bottom line is that the entire voting process is a farce unless some effort is made to prevent fraud.