At 7:01, CBS declared Mitt Romney the winner of the New Hampshire primary. The last polls closed at 7:00 our time. Quick work, no?
Equally important and also being called:
Ron Paul: 2nd place
Quote from: BKDotCom on January 10, 2012, 07:29:33 PM
Equally important and also being called:
Ron Paul: 2nd place
That's a mixed bag if I ever saw one.
Quote from: nathanm on January 10, 2012, 09:28:08 PM
That's a mixed bag if I ever saw one.
Mixed bag or smile bag?
MAGIC UNDERWEAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
UH OH
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 10, 2012, 11:26:18 PM
MAGIC UNDERWEAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
UH OH
Are you making fun of Mormans again?
I wonder if we will look forward to three years of Romney blaming Obama for our troubles and then blaming hate for Mormons on why people don't like his initiatives?
Ron Paul mounted a respectable showing. And weird to say for a third place finisher but Huntsman gets to stay in the race.
Gingrich is gone after SC if he doesn't win, place, or show.
Quote from: we vs us on January 11, 2012, 09:46:06 AM
Gingrich is gone after SC if he doesn't win, place, or show.
Not soon enough
Quote from: Conan71 on January 11, 2012, 09:16:38 AM
I wonder if we will look forward to three years of Romney blaming Obama for our troubles and then blaming hate for Mormons on why people don't like his initiatives?
Probably. Its an American tradition.
I don't hate Mormons....as a cult, they're just like all the rest. ;)
Community activists seem to make people more fearful than those that wear magic under garments....
Quote from: BKDotCom on January 10, 2012, 07:29:33 PM
Equally important and also being called:
Ron Paul: 2nd place
They may not like him, but his ideas resonate with the voters.
"The Party" would be foolish to dismiss that.
And look who won this Republican primary:
NEW YORK—It's Republican primary day in New Hampshire, and the nine registered voters of the tiny northern hamlet of Dixville Notch—who in their quadrennial tradition head to the polls just moments after midnight on election days so as to ensure the morning news shows have at least a few meaningless tea leaves to read off their teleprompters—have handed a resounding early victory to... President Obama! In what is widely regarded as a statistically precise sample of national voter sentiment, the President secured a resounding one-third of support in a crowded field, leap-frogging Republican rivals Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, both of whom who were tied for second with a mere 22% of the vote. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul each secured a single vote apiece, while projections indicate that nobody will ever cast another vote for Rick Perry.
Quote from: patric on January 11, 2012, 11:46:23 AM
They may not like him, but his ideas resonate with the voters.
Like the rest of the yahoos the Republicans have shoved into the spotlight thus far (save perhaps Romney), that's only because they don't know what his ideas are. The funny thing is that despite being a moonbat conspiracy theorist and gold bug, he still manages to be better policy positions on a lot of issues. Unfortunately, the rest of the issues he's completely effing insane on, so..
Generally speaking, if a person purports to believe something you heard on Alex Jones' radio show, you should not elect them to a position of power. Or give anything they say much credence (note I did not say Creedence. Everyone deserves more Creedence) without strong evidence that goes beyond mere assertion.
This is rather impressive.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 11, 2012, 11:40:28 AM
Community activists seem to make people more fearful than those that wear magic under garments....
It's the black thing. :o
Quote from: Gaspar on January 11, 2012, 12:50:23 PM
This is rather impressive.
It is impressive that someone would videotape themselves committing election fraud. Also impressive that you're concerned about a lag of less than two weeks in clearing people off the voting rolls. It truly shows that you have absolutely no sense of perspective.
Quote from: nathanm on January 11, 2012, 01:59:10 PM
It is impressive that someone would videotape themselves committing election fraud. Also impressive that you're concerned about a lag of less than two weeks in clearing people off the voting rolls. It truly shows that you have absolutely no sense of perspective.
First: They never accepted the ballots.
Second: If some form, any form, of ID were required, this would not be an issue.
The fact that you don't see it as a problem is what raises concerns.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 11, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
The fact that you don't see it as a problem is what raises concerns.
It is a problem that a jackass known for his dishonesty and his criminal record thinks it's OK to attempt to commit election fraud. The onus is on you to prove that this happens frequently enough to be something I should actually care about.
Moreover, I suspect that if we spent the amount of money necessary to strike people from the rolls within two weeks of their death you would rail against the "waste" of government funds. Your argument is completely disingenuous. You think it's impossible to fake an ID? If so, you might want to get out more.
Starting to look Like ol' Gaspar needs to ignore even more posters 'splodin' reality into his face.
Quote from: nathanm on January 11, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
It is a problem that a jackass known for his dishonesty and his criminal record thinks it's OK to attempt to commit election fraud. The onus is on you to prove that this happens frequently enough to be something I should actually care about.
Moreover, I suspect that if we spent the amount of money necessary to strike people from the rolls within two weeks of their death you would rail against the "waste" of government funds. Your argument is completely disingenuous. You think it's impossible to fake an ID? If so, you might want to get out more.
No, the problem is that there are places known and quite well documented for voter fraud. When activist groups can get an obit and drive from polling place to polling place voting on behalf of hundreds of dead people, it's a problem. Every election we find that thousands of dead people have cast a ballot.
When this happens you and i are disenfranchised because our votes carry less weight.
Sure, you can fake an ID and go vote on behalf of a person, but that requires a significant amount of effort, and to do it for hundreds of people would be quite a criminal enterprise. Like any crime, we will never be able to eliminate voter fraud, but that's not a reason not to try and mitigate it. Especially when the simple act of asking for identification is so easy, and effective.
As technology advances, soon this may no longer be an issue. There will be other simple ways of positively identifying voters without any mildly obtrusive requests. I am also positive that no matter how we ensure the security of our elective process there will always be those who fight it. The reasons for their motivation are obvious.
Note: I would never ignore you Nate. We strongly disagree on almost everything, but you are very capable of debate. I learn things from you, even though sometime I don't want to. Perhaps it's because you are not just a "drive-by" poster.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 11, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
No, the problem is that there are places known and quite well documented for voter fraud. When activist groups can get an obit and drive from polling place to polling place voting on behalf of hundreds of dead people, it's a problem.
Can that be cited by a reputable source?
Survey says...Not gonna happen.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 11, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
As technology advances, soon this may no longer be an issue. There will be other simple ways of positively identifying voters without any mildly obtrusive requests. I am also positive that no matter how we ensure the security of our elective process there will always be those who fight it. The reasons for their motivation are obvious.
My motivation is one you should understand: Freedom. My right to vote should not be contingent on convincing some government bureaucrat to issue a photo ID. A person who has been registered in the same place since 1950 should not have their right to vote be contingent on coming up with a nonexistent birth certificate (oh, home births) to satisfy an HB1804-like law and get an ID. If you want to require people provide the registrar with a secret word used to verify their identity or something, I'd be a lot more OK with that.
Unless you can show this is actually happening on a large scale, it's going to be pretty much impossible for you to convince me that it is better to make it harder for people to vote.
Sure.
When the Poughkeepsie Journal in New York did a 2006 analysis of how names of deceased people were still on New York's official list of registered voters, it conducted the assessment by matching "the names, dates of birth and ZIP codes of all listed voters in New York's database of 11.7 million voter registration records against the same information in the Social Security Administration's 'Death Master File,' a database of 77 million records of deaths dating to 1937." That study resulted in a final estimate of as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/NEWS01/610290381/1006/NEWS01
Also happened in Reno in 2008.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting
Acorn registered thousands of dead people.
http://www.electionjournal.org/2008/10/06/dead-man-registers-in-indiana-video-more-fraud-linked-to-acorn/
Mississippi:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/10/dead-ineligible-people-vote-miss/
California:
In October, KTVU Channel 2 cross-checked California's state death registry record across voter lists in the nine Bay Area counties, finding that in eight elections in the last ten years, "232 people with death certificates had voted after they had died – some more than once." 153 of these cases were from one county, Alameda. Karin MacDonald, the director of the Election Administration Research Center at UC-Berkeley, said "Probably what we're looking at is a lot of administrative error. There may very well be someone in there that somebody has voted for. Absolutely."
Dave MacDonald, the Registrar of Voters for Alameda County, said that his office attempts to keep the list of registered voters updated through the process of obtaining a file from the department of health "once or twice a year of everyone who's died in California and then we apply that to our voter registration database." He said he believes the irregularities on the voter list have to do with bookkeeping errors.
South Carolina:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/30188916/detail.html
Kansas City:
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/generic/news/local_news/investigations/Grave-Concerns
Houston:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/
Even if a single dead person is voting, that represents the disenfranchisement of a legal voter.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 11, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
Sure.
Even if a single dead person is voting, that represents the disenfranchisement of a legal voter.
All were said to be suspect. Were any proven per your articles?
You have a problem with one dead voter. How do you feel about the Electoral college making Oklahoma presidential votes meaningless?
Quote from: Townsend on January 11, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
All were said to be suspect. Were any proven per your articles?
You have a problem with one dead voter. How do you feel about the Electoral college making Oklahoma presidential votes meaningless?
Apples and oranges. Electoral College is mandated by law. Voter fraud is a crime and at best is flaunting the law.
O'Keefe May Face Voter Fraud Charges
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/11/james-o-keefe-commits-fraud-at-new-hampshire-polls.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/11/james-o-keefe-commits-fraud-at-new-hampshire-polls.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteIn an attempt to prove how not requiring identification at the polls in New Hampshire can lead to votor fraud, notorious conservative activist James O'Keefe may have committed a fraud himself. O'Keefe, known for carrying out harmful "stings" on organizations such as NPR, Acorn and CNN, produced a video showing his investigators successfully obtaining ballots under the names of dead people at several New Hampshire polling locations. Unfortunately for O'Keefe, the only one who actually may have committed voter fraud during Tuesday's election was him. Just obtaining ballots "that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held" is illegal.
Quote from: Townsend on January 11, 2012, 03:56:47 PM
O'Keefe May Face Voter Fraud Charges
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/11/james-o-keefe-commits-fraud-at-new-hampshire-polls.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/11/james-o-keefe-commits-fraud-at-new-hampshire-polls.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Prosecute his donkey to the fullest extent of the law.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 11, 2012, 03:56:39 PM
Apples and oranges. Electoral College is mandated by law. Voter fraud is a crime and at best is flaunting the law.
An act of fraud here and there. The candidates are probably guilty of more.
The EC makes Oklahoma presidential elections meaningless for millions.
Sorry, even if I accept the claims on their face they're immaterial. Even the sensationalistic New York numbers amount to six tenths of one percent of the electorate. Why don't you spend your time trying to impose increased lightning safety standards if you're so interested in the rare? People actually do die in house fires caused by lightning, fires that could be prevented with proper protection systems.