Thread: Mass Fraud Fears In US Election

Originally Posted by Muadib

Obama has the larger war chest and is using it to fund negative ad campaigns... He will likely win because most Americans can't think for themselves and believe whatever they see on TV... ACORN is just one of Obama's strategies to assure victory in November...

... You're joking right?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by attaboy

You'll have to elaborate. I didn't ignore the previous posts. I said Rove is an example of Republicans catching on and catching up. People on the right are reading books about leftist political strategy by guys like Saul Alinsky. People are beginning to understand how the leftists are playing the game. What's the matter with Democrats? They are getting a dose of their own medicine.


Mayor Daley of Chicago helped to get Jack Kennedy elected president via voter fraud. That's a fact in the history books. It's got to be on a grand scale and obvious to all for a stain like that to be acknowledged. I mean who wants it on their city's public record of achievements?

A Republican President has been in office for the last 8yrs, during which time elections were 'won' by any number of dubious and outright nefarious tactics. During this entire period the Democrats have bemoaned their inability or unwillingness to adopt or adapt to such tactics - Kerry's defeat in '04 has in a large part been laid at the feet of his failure to respond soon enough to the 'Swfit Boat' attacks; what does that tell you when a concerted campaign of lies and distortions is the defining measure in an election?

To suggest that Republicans are somehow only now catching onto Democrat tactics is taking quite some liberty and a rewriting and revisionism of recent history. And that, in a nutshell, was my original point; the seemingly innate ability of Republicans to conveniently 'forget' or ignore. One example of this is the current gnashing of teeth or voter fraud in the upcoming election. To this point it's not bothered them much has it.

Broad general statements and sneaky qualifers, Ant. Have you ever heard of "borking"? It predates swiftboating by 20 years.

Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"[3] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.

A sample of Senator Ted Kennedy borking Bork at the Senate confirmation hearings: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

Yep, Kennedy calls Bork a racist, a savage and a cretin during confirmation hearings. Another Senator (I couldn't find his quote) said Bork was "creepy" when referring to Bork's looks. Bork is not the most handsome of men. He has been compared to Jabba the Hutt.

I don't know of any books by rightist political strategists with titles like Rules for Radicals or Reveille for Radicals. There is The Prince.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Broad general statements and sneaky qualifers, Ant.

I mentioned specific examples, how's that "broad general statements". And there are no qualifiers, the pinciples the same. The only thing 'braod' is your failure to address any of the actual points raised in favour of speciousness.

Have you ever heard of "borking"? It predates swiftboating by 20 years.

Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?"[3] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.

A sample of Senator Ted Kennedy borking Bork at the Senate confirmation hearings: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

Yep, Kennedy calls Bork a racist, a savage and a cretin during confirmation hearings. Another Senator (I couldn't find his quote) said Bork was "creepy" when referring to Bork's looks. Bork is not the most handsome of men. He has been compared to Jabba the Hutt.

... and? What's your point? You're shifting the posts. Deliberately or not you're obfuscating from the point I originally made.

I don't know of any books by rightist political strategists with titles like Rules for Radicals or Reveille for Radicals. There is The Prince.

How on earth is Alinsky suddenly elevated to the position of political strategist for the Democrats!?

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know of any books by rightist political strategists with titles like Rules for Radicals or Reveille for Radicals. There is The Prince.

Just for you Atta :-

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking:-

16) Robert Ringer: Winning Through Intimidation (3)
16) Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations (3)
16) Ann Coulter: Treason (3)
16) William Shirer: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (3)
16) Dale Carnegie: How To Win Friends & Influence People (3)
16) Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (3) (***Two Votes For The Book & One Vote For The Trilogy Added Together***)
16) Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian Wars (3)
16) Russell Kirk: The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (3)
16) C.S. Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia (3)
16) Victor Davis Hanson: Carnage and Culture (3)
16) C.S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man (3)
13) Rush Limbaugh: The Way Things Ought to Be (4)
13) Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman: Free to Choose (4)
13) George Orwell: Animal Farm (4)
7) David Horowitz: Radical Son (5)
7) Robert Heinlein: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (5)
7) C. S. Lewis: Mere Christianity (5)
7) J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (5)
7) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay: The Federalist Papers (5)
7) Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom (5)
6) Sun Tzu: The Art of War (6)
3) F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom (8)
3) Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead (8)
3) George Orwell: 1984 (8)
2) Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (10)
1) Holy Bible (18) (***All Versions Added Together***)

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I'm amazed that CS Lewis seems to be so influential with bloggers of the Right.

Remember, under the new spin, voter fraud is no longer a "myth" -- now it's all-American!

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by attaboy

I don't know of any books by rightist political strategists with titles like Rules for Radicals or Reveille for Radicals. There is The Prince.

Just for you Atta :-

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking:-

16) Robert Ringer: Winning Through Intimidation (3)
16) Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations (3)
16) Ann Coulter: Treason (3)
16) William Shirer: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (3)
16) Dale Carnegie: How To Win Friends & Influence People (3)
16) Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (3) (***Two Votes For The Book & One Vote For The Trilogy Added Together***)
16) Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian Wars (3)
16) Russell Kirk: The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (3)
16) C.S. Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia (3)
16) Victor Davis Hanson: Carnage and Culture (3)
16) C.S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man (3)
13) Rush Limbaugh: The Way Things Ought to Be (4)
13) Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman: Free to Choose (4)
13) George Orwell: Animal Farm (4)
7) David Horowitz: Radical Son (5)
7) Robert Heinlein: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (5)
7) C. S. Lewis: Mere Christianity (5)
7) J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (5)
7) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay: The Federalist Papers (5)
7) Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom (5)
6) Sun Tzu: The Art of War (6)
3) F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom (8)
3) Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead (8)
3) George Orwell: 1984 (8)
2) Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged (10)
1) Holy Bible (18) (***All Versions Added Together***)

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

I'm amazed that CS Lewis seems to be so influential with bloggers of the Right.

Thnx sabang. Do any of these books say to purposely instigate chaos and misery in order to prod satisfied citizens to support change? It's pretty much standard procedure for the left.

Granted, the characters of Atlas Shrugged generated misery when they stopped supporting the corrupt system. They merely walked away. They didn't commit terrror and violence.

Where's Lord of the Flies, then?

^ Right here in Issues.

Heh...Six Alabama counties have more registered voters than voting-age people.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Nothing wrong with crossing off homeless people from the voting list -- that is one requisite for voting -- a legal home address.

There is eveything wrong about excluding a section of society from voting based on their non-ownership or non-rental of a house.

^ Aiya! Soon you'll be saying that convicted felons should be allowed to vote, too.

^Before we move on to that, perhaps you could indicate one way or another if you agree with me on the principle of not excluding those unable to afford a home from democracy?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Heh...Six Alabama counties have more registered voters than voting-age people.

It is very non partisan of you to bring this to our attention booner- Alabama is a Republican state after all.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^Before we move on to that, perhaps you could indicate one way or another if you agree with me on the principle of not excluding those unable to afford a home from democracy?

Not being able to afford a home does not render someone homeless. There's this newfangled arrangement where you can rent from someone else on a monthly basis. It works pretty well for a lot of people.

Interesting ... never thought about the homeless vote.

What if they're under the railroad trestle tonight and behind the loading docks of the WalMart in an adjacent town tomorrow? Where do they register?

If you let folks vote without requiring an address, aren't you merely welcoming fraud?

^Affording a home can mean by way of rent or purchase.

If the most 'democratic' and 'advanced' state on Earth cannot find a way of ensuring that citizens, regardless of their housing arrangements, are given the opportunity to vote, then it would cast a shameful shadow indeed.

What do you recommend? How is it done in your superior democracy?

How can you assure a person who claims he is homeless won't be snapped up by frauds and repeatedly sold to the next town over?

What would stop people from voting in their hometown and the place where they work?

^I believe the homeless can lodge their National Insurance (similar to you Social Security) numbers with the local council and be assigned a voting district. All votors are crossed off the list as they enter the polling station. The unique identifying number prevents double registration.

Jaysus - if they can manage it in third-world countries, where there are many homeless, why not in the most 'advanced' nation on Earth?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Your condescending tone is unbecoming.

I answered your question. If you find that condescending, then perhaps you are not used to having your questions answered?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Not all Americans have a social security number

Are you sure, why wouldn't they have one?

Originally Posted by Texpat

especially true for illegals (~12 million).
Maybe you'll offer them a vote too? Is that what your superior democracy does?

No, why would you offer the vote to anyone but your own citizens?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Perhaps Americans are simply more thorough and conscientious and realize excluding homeless because they're few in number and impossible to verify is a small price to pay in compromising validity and authenticity of the election.

Have you noticed what has being happening in the past year? Tent cities, people sleeping in cars, etc., etc. How convenient to exclude them and their views from the democratic process. I am really surprised that someone can hold these views, I thought they belonged in the dim and distant past.

Australia is the opposite extreme- not only do homeless folk have the right to vote, but they- like every other voting age citizen- is required to vote by law.

Can't say I'm sold on either system. Voting rights should not be attached to your financial status or current home situation, rather by your citizenship. But then neither should you be compelled to vote if you don't want to imo- the lazy or apathetic have their rights too.

^^ Seems we're both pissing into the wind.

Google homeless voters and you'll find several stories like this where local officials are bending over backward to offer homeless a chance to vote.

"Homeless people who registered to vote in Colorado risk being ejected from voter rolls if they don’t pick up a confirmation letter sent by their county clerk. The problem has less to do with partisan politics than with the nature of homelessness and the complexities of life without a permanent address. And, given those complexities, advocates estimate only about half of homeless people cast their vote.

Colorado law accommodates homeless voters by allowing them to register using any physical address. “It can be a park, a street corner or wherever they intend to return to in the evening,” says Meg Costello, public policy analyst with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. But the would-be voter must also provide a mailing address like a post office box, a shelter or a resource center such as the St. Francis Center in downtown Denver."

Colorado Independent » Elections bureaucracy jeopardizes half of homeless voter registrations


I'll say again, without accountability, you invite fraud.

^So, as Jet didn't answer, could you - do you think excluding the homeless from voting is a good thing?

I'll repeat what I said in post #65.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Interesting ... never thought about the homeless vote.

I think every US citizen should be afforded a vote. But, if there's no way to account for a particular block, it should be reconsidered or reworked. Obviously many places have figured out a way to account for homeless.

Bloody clever, those yanks, eh?

^So, that's a yes to being in favour of the homeless being disqualified from voting, but as long as fraud can be prevented (which is fine, they need to prevent fraud on absentee ballots and regular ones too).

I wonder if Jet will agree...