JFK never should have been President

[Dan Druff]

When voter fraud happens, it invariably happens on the counting side, not the voting side. That's why the ID laws don't solve anything. They wouldn't have prevented the examples Druff presented, as far as I know. Votes were bought, stolen, and added after the fact, but not a whole lot of illegitimate voters who would have been prevented from voting because of an ID law.

Voter fraud on the counting side can be countered by recounts, which would likely occur in this day and age in a close election.

However, if operatives discovered they needed votes in a very close race, they could send people around to various polling places and have them claim to be people who hadn't shown up yet. If this were done near the end of the day, it could be effective.

I'm saying that there's no point to leave this possibility open because a very small percentage of the electorate doesn't feel like getting ID.

I would even be fine with waiving ID processing fees for low-income people and making it easier for them to get ID. But allowing non-ID voting is a terrible idea, and contradicts our otherwise ID-dependent society.

[lol wow]

dangiel the real question is are you tipping everyone yet like you and your wifes jew breakfast that costs 11.95 total and you dont order cocktails are you throwing at least a 5 on that what are we looking at here now son

[Dan Druff]

dangiel the real question is are you tipping everyone yet like you and your wifes jew breakfast that costs 11.95 total and you dont order cocktails are you throwing at least a 5 on that what are we looking at here now son

get real gare, there's no way i would be caught dead at a place that serves an 11.95 breakfast for 2

[BHS]

Cmon Druff - Which party stands to gain here?

I haven't denied that Republicans will gain.

Why does that change anything?

The party gaining should have no relevance upon whether it's right or wrong.

So what needs changing again? Like DirtyB said, show me the actual "problem" coupled with what Crowe pointed out about where the fraud occurs - anyway, I think this agenda is transparent and fits conveniently with republican interests.

This has nothing to do with what's "right" or "wrong" and it's obvious.

[Dan Druff]

gare i think what you're missing is that i'm a cheap jew who bends over backwards to get value, not one who substitues shit for quality.

[lol wow]

i stand corrected people

[Dan Druff]

I haven't denied that Republicans will gain.

Why does that change anything?

The party gaining should have no relevance upon whether it's right or wrong.

So what needs changing again? Like DirtyB said, show me the actual "problem" coupled with what Crowe pointed out about where the fraud occurs - anyway, I think this agenda is transparent and fits conveniently with republican interests.

This has nothing to do with what's "right" or "wrong" and it's obvious.

I already explained all of that.

And yes, this does have to do with right or wrong, at least the point I'm arguing. I realize Republicans are pushing this because it will benefit them, but that's the same reason the Democrats are pushing the other side.

Show me one time when I've ever argued, "This opens up potential fraud, but I have no problem with it because I haven't seen anything happen yet."

You should know by now that I would always be against non-ID voting, no matter which party were to gain from it.

[lol wow]

are you at least dropping dollars on your takeout front of house people cuz not doing that in this economy is not okay

[tony bagadonuts]

I just addressed that. Nobody is proposing making the current rules weaker. I thought you were smart enough to grasp the difference. I guess not.

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

What "hole"? I asked you to provide a shred of evidence that any "hole" currently exists and you couldn't do it. Or do you think that nobody has had any interest or incentive to throw an election in the past 50 years?

Here. I'll even help you out. Here is one example of voter fraud. You just have to come up with one more.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_...slie_rutledge/

You're being an asshole and you're laughably wrong on this one so why don't you do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

[BHS]

And yes, this does have to do with right or wrong, at least the point I'm arguing.

You should know by now that I would always be against non-ID voting, no matter which party were to gain from it.

I get it dude.. it's actually very reasonable imo..

I just don't think it's a true "problem" but more of a thinly veiled attempt by the republicans to gain a cunt hair's edge in the voting..

Rather than trying to shut potentially eligible people out, why not provide a free verification system for that gimpy voter demographic capable of ensuring whether or not they're eligible on the spot.

If that's what this is really about, would you agree that there are better solutions than banning the would-be eligible voters.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

DirtyB, I think he means business!

[Gordman]

DirtyB, I think he means business!

And hes right too

Just like he aligns todays Christianity with Islam, they are one in the same according to him, and I guess he's right. DirtyB is always right.

Personally, I am REALLY getting sick of all of the Christian beheadings and murdering of women and children because of their religion. And don't get me started about all of those Christian suicide attacks...

[Jayjami]

Voter fraud on the voting side is a non-issue. It is merely a talking point for the GOP, a party that simply cannot attract new voters (which is too bad, because some of their ideas have substantial merit). Rather than persuading people with the force of their ideas, they want to discourage people from voting in a desperate attempt to maintain their dwindling power. The statistical reality is that the lower the voter turnout, the more likely a Republican will be elected, so they take a few isolated instances of people voting for someone else, and blow it out of proportion.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

DirtyB, I think he means business!

And hes right too

Just like he aligns todays Christianity with Islam, they are one in the same according to him, and I guess he's right. DirtyB is always right.

Personally, I am REALLY getting sick of all of the Christian beheadings and murdering of women and children because of their religion. And don't get me started about all of those Christian suicide attacks...

Everyone generally thinks they are right when they are explaining how they think something works. You can't possibly fault him for that.

Also quite certain he isn't in favor of beheadings and the murdering of women and children. But if you are honestly suggesting that white people(mostly Christian) aren't killing brown women and children... well because of their religion for one thing... you can seriously go fuck yourself.

[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

[Gordman]

And hes right too

Just like he aligns todays Christianity with Islam, they are one in the same according to him, and I guess he's right. DirtyB is always right.

Personally, I am REALLY getting sick of all of the Christian beheadings and murdering of women and children because of their religion. And don't get me started about all of those Christian suicide attacks...

Everyone generally thinks they are right when they are explaining how they think something works. You can't possibly fault him for that.

Also quite certain he isn't in favor of beheadings and the murdering of women and children. But if you are honestly suggesting that white people(mostly Christian) aren't killing brown women and children... well because of their religion for one thing... you can seriously go fuck yourself.

I was simply referencing a couple of posts he made a while back where he insisted that the christian religion and Islam religion were one in the same. That obviously isn't true.

regarding your comment, people are murdered every day from all walks of life - I get that, so I guess im not exactly sure what your getting at; then again, im drinking heavily right now so i guess that would explain it for me. Anyway, im not going to derail the thread anymore so ill stop here.

[BCR]

Iirc Jsizzle called both Texas and Illinois going blue in '60

[DirtyB]

You're being an asshole and you're laughably wrong on this one so why don't you do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

I know it's very frustrating for you on the rare occasion that this site has a semi-intelligent thread.

Here's a link to your Seahawks thread-

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ur-Face/page61

You can head back there and not feel stupid anymore.

[DirtyB]

Voter fraud on the counting side can be countered by recounts, which would likely occur in this day and age in a close election.

That's entirely not true. The 2002 Georgia Senate election I mentioned did not have any recounts. They used completely electronic Diebold voting machines. The computer spit out that Saxby Chambliss won with 53% of the vote, and that was that. No auditing the proprietary source code, no nothing.