• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

N.C. just found thousands of felony-level voter fraud cases



It's not racist, it's unnecessary. The fraud it would stop amounts to a fraction of 1 percent of the votes cast. Meanwhile, it does nothing about corruption or the holes in the absentee balloting. It doesn't fix the structural changes needed in the 50 different voting systems.

The whole arguement comes down to this: 1 side is OK with some illegal votes as long as nobody is disenfranchised. The other side is OK with a few people being disenfranchised if it prevents just one illegal vote. It's not unlike the gun control debate except the sides are reversed. I don't see how a few bad votes should result in the rights of law abiding citizens being abridged.

Who decides what forms of ID are acceptable? The politicians who benefit from the dirty system. Therein lies the problem with your argument.
 
Another absolute bull**** story from a FAR RIGHT rag. Keep trying, guys. It keeps you from doing something that really might be dangerous, such as crafting a message that appeals to people other than old white guys.

Then how about another sources (I can give you a lot more):

The newspaper in the State Capital; Raleigh


This story is a follow-up story and has both sides. Notice that the Democrats are trying their best to "say it ain't so" even though it obviously is.

And the law that requires voter ID, also requires other things like the investigation that found this voter fraud. So in other words, if the bill hadn't been passed, this fraud would not have been found. Kinda explains why people keep saying that "there is no voter fraud" since before now, here in NC we had no way to legally check for it or even look for it. Now we do, and guess what... we're just starting to find it. More to come...



When someone gets convicted in court come back and tell us all about it.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

As you can see in the article I posted, the local District Attorney's are responsible for the prosecution now that the evidence has been uncovered.

My prediction?

Democrat DA's will do nothing, and Republican DA's will. Why do I think that? Just look at the rhetoric coming from the Democratic party and the left on this very board.

Given that "no voter fraud exists" has been the mantra of the left, and now that voter fraud is actually being discovered thanks to laws like the NC Voter laws, Democrats will do everything they can do to support their claim that voter fraud doesn't exist which will include refusing to prosecute cases when found.

Think about that guys. Either it it real, or it isn't. It sure looks like the facts are going against the Democrat talking points.

Why do some keep denying the truth?
 
It's not racist, it's unnecessary. The fraud it would stop amounts to a fraction of 1 percent of the votes cast. Meanwhile, it does nothing about corruption or the holes in the absentee balloting. It doesn't fix the structural changes needed in the 50 different voting systems.

The whole arguement comes down to this: 1 side is OK with some illegal votes as long as nobody is disenfranchised. The other side is OK with a few people being disenfranchised if it prevents just one illegal vote. It's not unlike the gun control debate except the sides are reversed. I don't see how a few bad votes should result in the rights of law abiding citizens being abridged.

Who decides what forms of ID are acceptable? The politicians who benefit from the dirty system. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

I think your two points that you state it comes down to are more like this: One side doesn't want anyone disenfranchised but hasn't dealt with all the problems that can cause said disenfranchisement, but is at least trying to get there, and; the other one uses disenfranchisement as their reason to fight voter law reform as long as the fraudulent votes cast have the potential to more than likely be cast for them.

Just my opinion based on what I have seen and read.

You're correct that absentee voters should have to be controlled since they are the easiest path to election fraud, and the NC law this thread is about does that - Absentee voters must show an ID when picking up their ballot. What it can't do, is allow for a cross check before the votes are cast in all other states. A federal law would have to be enacted to do that, or other states would have to agree to cooperate. A few have agreed to do so, and NC is one that has. And so far, only GOP controlled states are the ones that do. Some Democrat controlled states have agreed to cooperate, but only after the votes are already cast and the election is certified. I find that interesting.
 

44717898.jpg


Consider the source
 
Another absolute bull**** story from a FAR RIGHT rag. Keep trying, guys. It keeps you from doing something that really might be dangerous, such as crafting a message that appeals to people other than old white guys.

Hey Wiggen :2wave:

Here in Mexifornia formerly California voter fraud is as common as taco trucks on the streets of L.A.

How do you think Loretta Sanchez (Lib-D) was able to defeat Rep. Bob Dornan (R) in "Reagan Country" aka Orange County ?

The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat

>" In 1995, Republican Congressman Bob Dornan, who had represented two different Southern California districts, starting in 1976, decided to run for president. He had great fun for about a year, but spent most of his campaign funds and neglected his district. This gave an opening to a Democratic financial analyst named Loretta Sanchez-Brixey, who had run for several minor offices without success. She dropped the Brixey (though not her husband) so as to appear more Hispanic and ran a clever campaign against Dornan, defeating him by the narrow margin of 984 votes. A visit by Bill Clinton and help from the state and national Democratic parties may have made the difference. (Clinton and the Democrats had good reason to dislike Dornan, who had criticized Clinton as a draft dodger and a "multiple womanizer".)

So far, this would seem to be a routine story, just another example of a politician who didn't pay enough attention to the folks back home, or how his district was changing. But there is more to the story. Dornan charged that Sanchez's margin came from non-citizens, and an investigation by the House of Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election. Some believe that far more non-citizens voted, who were not detected. John Fund, in Stealing Elections, says that:

An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District revealed that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24)


Unfortunately, Fund does not provide an end note for that quotation, though he does for most others in the book. The 4,023 is a larger number than I have seen in other accounts, though I have seen claims that more than 2,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in the district. The authoritative Almanac of American Politics (1998 edition) says only that "it is possible that Dornan has a case", which is as far as I would go, too.

But the Almanac has more to say about how many of those non-citizens got on the rolls, and that part of the story is also instructive..."<

Continue -> Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat
 
Then how about another sources (I can give you a lot more):

The newspaper in the State Capital; Raleigh


This story is a follow-up story and has both sides. Notice that the Democrats are trying their best to "say it ain't so" even though it obviously is.

And the law that requires voter ID, also requires other things like the investigation that found this voter fraud. So in other words, if the bill hadn't been passed, this fraud would not have been found. Kinda explains why people keep saying that "there is no voter fraud" since before now, here in NC we had no way to legally check for it or even look for it. Now we do, and guess what... we're just starting to find it. More to come...





As you can see in the article I posted, the local District Attorney's are responsible for the prosecution now that the evidence has been uncovered.

My prediction?

Democrat DA's will do nothing, and Republican DA's will. Why do I think that? Just look at the rhetoric coming from the Democratic party and the left on this very board.

Given that "no voter fraud exists" has been the mantra of the left, and now that voter fraud is actually being discovered thanks to laws like the NC Voter laws, Democrats will do everything they can do to support their claim that voter fraud doesn't exist which will include refusing to prosecute cases when found.

Think about that guys. Either it it real, or it isn't. It sure looks like the facts are going against the Democrat talking points.

Why do some keep denying the truth?




One man's truth is another mans vote suppression.
 
I think your two points that you state it comes down to are more like this: One side doesn't want anyone disenfranchised but hasn't dealt with all the problems that can cause said disenfranchisement, but is at least trying to get there, and; the other one uses disenfranchisement as their reason to fight voter law reform as long as the fraudulent votes cast have the potential to more than likely be cast for them.

Just my opinion based on what I have seen and read.

You're correct that absentee voters should have to be controlled since they are the easiest path to election fraud, and the NC law this thread is about does that - Absentee voters must show an ID when picking up their ballot. What it can't do, is allow for a cross check before the votes are cast in all other states. A federal law would have to be enacted to do that, or other states would have to agree to cooperate. A few have agreed to do so, and NC is one that has. And so far, only GOP controlled states are the ones that do. Some Democrat controlled states have agreed to cooperate, but only after the votes are already cast and the election is certified. I find that interesting.

Like the Republicans don't like invalid votes that are for them....:roll:

Here's the thing: I'm not willing to say "Well, we don't have it all worked out yet" while people can't vote. Neither party is going to fix those issues if they won. What you're telling us is that it's OK with you if some people get disenfranchised - even though it's not what you "want" - because it's a start, and the fact that we don't have the issues dealt with is OK too. It's not OK to me. They tried up here to do a voter ID amendment (which failed). In the end I voted against it because when pressed for specifics, they basically just said "Trust us." Don't trust politicians. They don't care if you're disenfranchised unless you vote for them. I have a big problem with that.
 
Hey Wiggen :2wave:

Here in Mexifornia formerly California voter fraud is as common as taco trucks on the streets of L.A.

How do you think Loretta Sanchez (Lib-D) was able to defeat Rep. Bob Dornan (R) in "Reagan Country" aka Orange County ?

The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat

>" In 1995, Republican Congressman Bob Dornan, who had represented two different Southern California districts, starting in 1976, decided to run for president. He had great fun for about a year, but spent most of his campaign funds and neglected his district. This gave an opening to a Democratic financial analyst named Loretta Sanchez-Brixey, who had run for several minor offices without success. She dropped the Brixey (though not her husband) so as to appear more Hispanic and ran a clever campaign against Dornan, defeating him by the narrow margin of 984 votes. A visit by Bill Clinton and help from the state and national Democratic parties may have made the difference. (Clinton and the Democrats had good reason to dislike Dornan, who had criticized Clinton as a draft dodger and a "multiple womanizer".)

So far, this would seem to be a routine story, just another example of a politician who didn't pay enough attention to the folks back home, or how his district was changing. But there is more to the story. Dornan charged that Sanchez's margin came from non-citizens, and an investigation by the House of Representatives found that 547 non-citizens had voted in the election. Some believe that far more non-citizens voted, who were not detected. John Fund, in Stealing Elections, says that:

An INS investigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in California's Forty-sixth Congressional District revealed that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez." (p. 24)


Unfortunately, Fund does not provide an end note for that quotation, though he does for most others in the book. The 4,023 is a larger number than I have seen in other accounts, though I have seen claims that more than 2,000 non-citizens were registered to vote in the district. The authoritative Almanac of American Politics (1998 edition) says only that "it is possible that Dornan has a case", which is as far as I would go, too.

But the Almanac has more to say about how many of those non-citizens got on the rolls, and that part of the story is also instructive..."<

Continue -> Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat

Ah, but who did they vote for? Isn't that the real question?
 
When someone gets convicted in court come back and tell us all about it.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.



I guess that's the new standard....

When a sitting president can obstruct justice and get away with it, it becomes second nature to arrogantly snub an investigation into what you have been denying all along....easy to do.

Don't ever allow for the possibility of being wrong on what you think you know....
 
All of them? How would you know?

Actually it was "DIRTY" Larry 'Nativo' Lopez, formerly of the corrupt "Hermandad Mexicana Nacional."

It was "Hermandad Mexicana Nacional" who was registering illegal aliens and non-citizen to vote and telling them to cast their votes for Loretta Sanchez.

I was subpoenaed to testify before Congress since I personally witnessed Larry Lopez registering illegal aliens to vote and also witnessed him throwing a voter registration card in a trashcan because the person didn't registered as a Democrat.

He was Finlay convicted for voter fraud in 2010 twenty years after the fact. But MALDEF and Eric Holder kept him out of prison.

I'm willing to bet he's registered tens of thousands of illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote in our elections over the years.

Nativo Lopez / Hermandad Mexicana Nacional
 
I guess that's the new standard....

When a sitting president can obstruct justice and get away with it, it becomes second nature to arrogantly snub an investigation into what you have been denying all along....easy to do.
Don't ever allow for the possibility of being wrong on what you think you know...
.




Sounds like an excellent idea.
 
Zero of the votes mentioned in this report would have been stopped by checking an ID.
 
Then how about another sources (I can give you a lot more):

The newspaper in the State Capital; Raleigh


This story is a follow-up story and has both sides. Notice that the Democrats are trying their best to "say it ain't so" even though it obviously is.

And the law that requires voter ID, also requires other things like the investigation that found this voter fraud. So in other words, if the bill hadn't been passed, this fraud would not have been found. Kinda explains why people keep saying that "there is no voter fraud" since before now, here in NC we had no way to legally check for it or even look for it. Now we do, and guess what... we're just starting to find it. More to come...





As you can see in the article I posted, the local District Attorney's are responsible for the prosecution now that the evidence has been uncovered.

My prediction?

Democrat DA's will do nothing, and Republican DA's will. Why do I think that? Just look at the rhetoric coming from the Democratic party and the left on this very board.

Given that "no voter fraud exists" has been the mantra of the left, and now that voter fraud is actually being discovered thanks to laws like the NC Voter laws, Democrats will do everything they can do to support their claim that voter fraud doesn't exist which will include refusing to prosecute cases when found.

Think about that guys. Either it it real, or it isn't. It sure looks like the facts are going against the Democrat talking points.

Why do some keep denying the truth?

since nothing has been proved I find you partisan nonsense hilarious.

But here is the thing, from your link:

VOTER ID: Would it prevent these instances? Unlikely, observers say. An ID alone can’t stop voting in two states. It may stop people from voting under a dead person’s name, but absentee ballots don’t require photo verification to vote.

Read more here: Morning Memo: Report on possible double voting creates a storm | Under the Dome Blog | NewsObserver.com
 
Voter ID is an idea who's time has come. Clear a path libs.

voter id would not have done anything to stop what has been claimed here.
BTW we have always had to identify ourselves to vote.
 
voter id would not have done anything to stop what has been claimed here.
BTW we have always had to identify ourselves to vote.

Yeah, in my state you just state your name, they can't even legally ask for ID. Thats going to change very soon.
 
Voter ID is an idea who's time has come. Clear a path libs.

Maybe, maybe not - it certainly wouldn't have stopped the 765 cases of dual voting.

NC photo ID wouldn't stop 2-state voting
Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said the photo ID demand wouldn't make a difference in preventing two-state voting.

"The voter ID wouldn't stop any single one of those voters from double-voting," said Earls, the lead attorney in a state lawsuit filed by interest groups and several voters challenging the ID requirement.

Speaking at a Legislative Building news conference, Earls argued that the law actually may encourage fraud by making it easier to vote by mail through absentee ballots. The law doesn't require someone who wants to vote by mail to offer a photo ID, but rather the person must provide other identifying documents or numbers.

Double-voting could occur when a person living in one state votes at a precinct on Election Day while having already voted in another state by mail using an old address.
 
voter id would not have done anything to stop what has been claimed here.
BTW we have always had to identify ourselves to vote.

Quiet. You're spoiling the fun.

Everyone knows that any kind of 'voter fraud' means that photo ID is necessary, even if photo ID would have NO effect on the type of 'voter fraud' being discussed.

Besides, there's been a pattern to the revelations of massive cases of voter fraud. We get the preliminary shocked announcement of thousands of cases of potential fraud, then and a year or two later we find out that the actual numbers are a handful or so.

Based on past results, that's the likely outcome here:

However, other states using the cross-check system have yielded relatively few criminal prosecutions for voter fraud once the cases were thoroughly investigated.

Only 11 people were prosecuted on allegations of double-voting as a result of the 15 states that performed similar database checks following the 2010 elections, according to data compiled by elections officials in Kansas, where the cross-check program originated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom