22 signs voter fraud is out of control, & election a sham

rberq wrote:.. and the GOP retained control of the House only by gerrymandering in the states where they had legislative control? Do you include gerrymandering (by either party) as a type of vote fraud? If so, the last election truly WAS a sham, as it should have been a Democratic sweep.

You ever see some of the districts in Illinois? The fact is whoever is control of drawing the lines does it, it's a poor practice that needs to be stopped.

Richard S. wrote:

rberq wrote:.. and the GOP retained control of the House only by gerrymandering in the states where they had legislative control? Do you include gerrymandering (by either party) as a type of vote fraud? If so, the last election truly WAS a sham, as it should have been a Democratic sweep.

You ever see some of the districts in Illinois? The fact is whoever is control of drawing the lines does it, it's a poor practice that needs to be stopped.

You ever see some of the districts in NC, TX, etc? Its the same on both sides.

NC12 is a great example of gerrymandering:

Davian wrote:I'm not trying to say that it never ever happens but it simply doesn't occur at a level to turn elections...as indicated in the link I provided. There are small instances on both sides and the percentage of fraudulent. The rate of voter fraud is smaller than the error rate on electronic voting machines...hardly a massive crisis.


Here's another link for a study on it: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... ter_fraud/

“Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.”

--Joseph P Kennedy

Don't kid yourself.

President Barack Obama won re-election by one of the highest margins in political history !. romney lost , not because of voter fraud, although repubs did try hard to stifle the voting rights of non- repubs, he lost because his campaign agenda stunk, and the majority of Americans , fortunately, were intelligent enough to see right through it. many people I think voted for prez. O, but will not admit it, lest they be ostracized by the hate groups. get over it sore losers, the country is moving ahead, with or without you all.

He won.

But it was no Reagan/Mondale so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

The country is moving on. You're right about that.

It's moving on the road to Greece.

Forward!!

homecomfort wrote:romney lost , not because of voter fraud, although repubs did try hard to stifle the voting rights of non- repubs, he lost because his campaign agenda stunk, and the majority of Americans , fortunately, were intelligent enough to see right through it.

I'm not sure "intelligent" is a good word to describe the American electorate. The Bush years put the US in the toilet, resulting in a Democratic sweep in 2008, but two short years later an even more despicable group of right-wingers won control of the House. How can we call that "intelligent"?

homecomfort wrote:President Barack Obama won re-election by one of the highest margins in political history !. romney lost , not because of voter fraud, although repubs did try hard to stifle the voting rights of non- repubs, he lost because his campaign agenda stunk, and the majority of Americans , fortunately, were intelligent enough to see right through it. many people I think voted for prez. O, but will not admit it, lest they be ostracized by the hate groups. get over it sore losers, the country is moving ahead, with or without you all.

"President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, criticized President Bush for taking “out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents … so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back.”

But Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt. The nation owed $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, and has added another $5.4 trillion since – more than Bush piled up in two terms."

Yeah, you dems are intelligent ones...

It isn't about hate. And quite frankly, I could care less if a dem gets elected. What bothers me is seeing us owe money to powerful countries like China, seeing the government take over our right to quality health care, and watching my tax dollars get handed out to those "less fortunate" which around here means LAZY. As someone with a health issue, I like getting to pick who opens me up and who takes care of me, and I like that my insurance takes care of the $160,000 bill. I dont know about you, but I dont want a guy who got a C minus in heart physiology working on my ticker.

If you walk to the edge of a cliff and take step forward, or turn around and take a step forward, which way is progress?

the corporate tax breaks, handouts, welfare, whatever you want to call it,, and the infamous Bush tax cuts, cost the treasury,taxpayer, a lot more, on a huge magnitude, than some payments to the needy, sure there is some bums collecting that should be shot instead, but the bigwigs are the cause of the outrageous deficit. Big O cannot stop the entrenched system of expensive handouts.

homecomfort wrote:the corporate tax breaks, handouts, welfare, whatever you want to call it,, and the infamous Bush tax cuts, cost the treasury,taxpayer, a lot more, on a huge magnitude, than some payments to the needy, sure there is some bums collecting that should be shot instead, but the bigwigs are the cause of the outrageous deficit. Big O cannot stop the entrenched system of expensive handouts.

And yet I still ask: If you walk to the edge of a cliff and take step forward, or turn around and take a step forward, which way is progress?

We are moving forward, like the Obama signs say, but that forward is a fall from a height that will be epic and the likes unseen.

Since we are talking about hate, I found this to be interesting. Written by a black man: http://blackquillandink.com/?p=6843

homecomfort wrote: Big O cannot stop the entrenched system of expensive handouts.

So why did several million fools believe him when he said "Change"?

homecomfort wrote:the corporate tax breaks, handouts, welfare, whatever you want to call it,, and the infamous Bush tax cuts, cost the treasury,taxpayer, a lot more, on a huge magnitude, than some payments to the needy, sure there is some bums collecting that should be shot instead, but the bigwigs are the cause of the outrageous deficit. Big O cannot stop the entrenched system of expensive handouts.

Why didn't Obama fix all these problems when he got elected. you may have to refresh my memory, but the first two years didn't he have a super majority of congress.




Eric

If your not bringing enough in to even pay the principal the amount owed is just gonna continue to grow, as long as Congress tries to do everything it can to hold things back nothing will change. Now that the election is over & Congress knows the people will have another chance to clean house next election maybe just maybe they will try to save their own jobs.

But Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt. The nation owed $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, and has added another $5.4 trillion since – more than Bush piled up in two terms."

Though, to be fair, a large chunk of that was him actually putting the cost of both wars on the books as opposed to pretending like that money didnt exist. Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes while fighting two wars. Not putting the cost on the books was also completely irresponsible.

Davian wrote:

But Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt. The nation owed $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, and has added another $5.4 trillion since – more than Bush piled up in two terms."

Though, to be fair, a large chunk of that was him actually putting the cost of both wars on the books as opposed to pretending like that money didnt exist. Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes while fighting two wars. Not putting the cost on the books was also completely irresponsible.

Which books. The government keeps 3 or 4 sets.

How many times have the "Bush tax cuts" been extended while continuing two wars and starting several smaller conflicts?

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:

But Obama has been unable to slow the rapidly mounting debt. The nation owed $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, and has added another $5.4 trillion since – more than Bush piled up in two terms."

Though, to be fair, a large chunk of that was him actually putting the cost of both wars on the books as opposed to pretending like that money didnt exist. Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes while fighting two wars. Not putting the cost on the books was also completely irresponsible.

Which books. The government keeps 3 or 4 sets.

How many times have the "Bush tax cuts" been extended while continuing two wars and starting several smaller conflicts?

Agreed if the bush tax cuts were so much of a problem, why did Obama extend them instead of fixing what was wrong.

Eric