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.

[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]

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]

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.

Nobody looks for it is LOL. Yeah, when all these state reps got their bill from ALEC to push through, you don't think staff members weren't desperately trying to find instances of voter fraud? C'mon.

[Krypt]

Nixon was an absolute creep and would have probably fucked up the Cuban missile crisis situation. JFK was also strange; notwithstanding, he was more "presidential" and level-headed.

[DirtyB]

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.

You thought that by typing a bunch of words I wouldn't notice that you couldn't come up with a single example to support your argument?

If someone was proposing loosing the requirements for voting, your post would make sense. But Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote, to solve a problem that clearly does not exist. And in a shocking coincidence, the rules Republicans are proposing to solve a problem that clearly doesn't exist, would largely prevent minorities and poor people from voting.

[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]

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.

Anybody over 50, assuming they like Medicare and Social Security as it stands, would be retarded if they voted Republican. The Republican house has passed bills to dissolve Medicare. Do you have any idea how much that would cost a 65 year old?

[Jayjami]

You are probably correct about the 1960 election. A lot of dead people in Chicago voted that November. However, the instances of voter fraud in this country today are statistically minimal. Please cite one recent election in which voter fraud influenced the outcome. There aren't any.

[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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

You thought that by typing a bunch of words I wouldn't notice that you couldn't come up with a single example to support your argument?

If someone was proposing loosing the requirements for voting, your post would make sense. But Republicans are trying to make it harder to vote, to solve a problem that clearly does not exist. And in a shocking coincidence, the rules Republicans are proposing to solve a problem that clearly doesn't exist, would largely prevent minorities and poor people from voting.

The "problem that doesn't exist" changed the results of a Presidential election during the lifetime of some of the forum members here.

It's not like this occurred in 1860.

We also haven't a US airliner downed by a terrorist attack in over 10 years. Should we also abandon airline security?

It amazes me that Democrats basically want a big election hole left wide open, simply because it benefits them to do so.

Actually it doesn't amaze me, but what amazes me is watching otherwise intelligent people attack the attempt to close that hole as "racist".

So the takeaway here is, "If it benefits Republicans, we have to oppose it."

Got it.

[simpdog]

Druff have you been watching Boardwalk Empire?

[ToasterOven]

Druff, as a Republican, how can you be in favor of regulations in search of a problem? Aren't you for small government?

[lol wow]

dangiel druff do you remember where you were on election night 2000