An interesting election fraud update from the WaPo

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

14% of non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008 and 2010. Estimated 6+% voted in 2008.

This post was edited on 10/24 8:09 PM by Marshal Jim Duncan

James Madison is Crying

 

[BvillePoker]

You do not think that thefederalist.com has an agenda to push? If I cited tnr.com as a source you would crucify me.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by BvillePoker:
You do not think that thefederalist.com has an agenda to push? If I cited tnr.com as a source you would crucify me.

Somehow I posted the wrong link. The link is to the Washington Post. Which proves you didn't read it in the first place.

Actually TNR used to be a really fair magazine, though I'd disagree with most of what they'd say. They still produce some good articles critical of their lefty brethren, unlike, say Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation. They really took a turn for the worse when they published the war correspondence from the fake soldier during the Iraq war.

 

[BvillePoker]

Olathe...errrrr Marshall, I am interested to know what the WP article is citing as "non-citizen" votes and where they are getting those numbers from. The CCES website does very little to clarify this point either. Doesn't seem to be a lot of cite support for this article. Not saying that it is not accurate, but just want to peel back the curtain a little on an op-ed piece. The CCES cite they use is a very very small subset of numbers that I do not think can be extrapolated to equate the voting populace as a whole. I definitely need to do some more research on the subject from this perspective.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I just thought it was an interesting piece. What's clear is there is a substantial faction within the Democrat Party that is hellbent on getting as many likely lifelong Democrat voters into the country and registered to vote as possible, legally or illegally. That is undeniable.

I'm not olathepoke BTW.

 

[Headhunter]

Liberals/Democrats believe the end resuslt justifies any means necessary.

 

[BvillePoker]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
I just thought it was an interesting piece. What's clear is there is a substantial faction within the Democrat Party that is hellbent on getting as many likely lifelong Democrat voters into the country and registered to vote as possible, legally or illegally. That is undeniable.

I'm not olathepoke BTW.

I do not argue that at all. My question would be are those voter eligible according to the COTUS to vote? And would a photo ID make a larger impact on keeping inneligible voters from voting or eligible voters from voting?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by BvillePoker:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
I just thought it was an interesting piece. What's clear is there is a substantial faction within the Democrat Party that is hellbent on getting as many likely lifelong Democrat voters into the country and registered to vote as possible, legally or illegally. That is undeniable.

I'm not olathepoke BTW.

I do not argue that at all. My question would be are those voter eligible according to the COTUS to vote? And would a photo ID make a larger impact on keeping inneligible voters from voting or eligible voters from voting?

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that precludes some reasonable proof of eligibility to vote. To suggest that an ID isn't reasonable is asinine.

Do speeding laws catch all speeders or even MOST speeders? Letting would law breakers know we take the law seriouslyand are a nation of laws is an important foundation our Democratic Republic. Unfortunately, it's probably gone forever.

 

[BvillePoker]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Originally posted by BvillePoker:

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
I just thought it was an interesting piece. What's clear is there is a substantial faction within the Democrat Party that is hellbent on getting as many likely lifelong Democrat voters into the country and registered to vote as possible, legally or illegally. That is undeniable.

I'm not olathepoke BTW.

I do not argue that at all. My question would be are those voter eligible according to the COTUS to vote? And would a photo ID make a larger impact on keeping inneligible voters from voting or eligible voters from voting?

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that precludes some reasonable proof of eligibility to vote. To suggest that an ID isn't reasonable is asinine.

Do speeding laws catch all speeders or even MOST speeders? Letting would law breakers know we take the law seriouslyand are a nation of laws is an important foundation our Democratic Republic. Unfortunately, it's probably gone forever.

I have never in any thread been against requiring voters to be legally eligible to vote. I suggest that an ID that denotes a person's race, ethnicity, religion or economic standing or requires a fee to obtain is in violation of the COTUS. I have also said that it is an obstacle to exercising the COTUS protected right of voting that is unnecessary for the amount of in person voter fraud that can be documented at this time. Also that if you require a fee for the photo ID it would be considered a "poll tax" that is definitely unconstitutional. You still avoid the specific question I asked.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

 

[BvillePoker]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:
You're wrong. It's as simple as that.
I might be, but nothing you have said has convinced me of that.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

If voter id's were free, the liberals would oppose.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by N. Pappagiorgio:
If voter id's were free, the liberals would oppose.

They are available for free in most states where required.

 

[inspoke]

Before Oklahoma started requiring ID's to vote, I used to go into my precinct to vote and was amazed at how easy it would be to vote as someone else. The registered voter signature sheets were sitting out on the table. All you needed to do was look at the page that was showing and pick a name that hadn't been signed for yet. If a person had been willing to do this, they would have cast an illegal vote AND would have prevented a legal vote from being cast. In a closely contested local race, just a few people going to all the precincts in the race could have tipped the balance in their candidate's favor.

It has been so long since I registered to vote that I can't remember what documentation is required in order to register. So I went to ok.gov and looked at the requirements. No proof of citizenship is required to register. You only have to sign an oath that you are a US citizen.

I understand the Voter ID complaints by some but I don't understand why anyone would be against having to prove your citizenship in order to register to vote. It seems to me that an improperly registered voter would disenfranchise all properly registered voters.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

From the conclusion of the abstract:

We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Nope, nothing going on here; nothing at all: http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391474/non-citizens-are-voting-john-fund

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by Marshal Jim Duncan:

Nope, nothing going on here; nothing at all: http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/

Come on man

 

[Headhunter]

Massive voter fraud uncovered in Maryland, lawsuit filed. 40,000 people registered in Maryland and Virginia.

Nothing to see here folks, move along just Democrats being Democrats.