Voter fraud....indeed

AMDG said:

Didn't want to look up the mess around Franken's election (or the fact that he WAS a deciding vote when ACA was rammed down the throat of the people in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Of the 110 allegations or so, six were found to be legitimate and the people were prosecuted. Six. Yes, some guano insane, ultra right-wing (redundant) site claimed a lot of things, but upon investigation their claims could not be substantiated. Not that I expect the truth to have any bearing on this.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"

WarriorAngel said:

According to liberal websites....

Click to expand...

According to reality. After investigation by authorities, six cases were found which is less than 100 in every math class I have ever taken and gives the website a 6% accuracy rate.

Although, being a devoted conspiracy theorist, is your next comment that obviously the investigation covered things up?

LoAmmi said:

According to reality. After investigation by authorities, six cases were found which is less than 100 in every math class I have ever taken and gives the website a 6% accuracy rate.

Although, being a devoted conspiracy theorist, is your next comment that obviously the investigation covered things up?

Click to expand...

Six cases? Nope. ACORN was convicted in eleven states. It also lost funding because it was found that it was included in the Health and Human Services Campaign that the Catholic Church held to take up a collection (while being AGAINST Catholic teaching) so congregation after congregation refused to donate.

And surely both the military being disenfranchised yet AGAIN was covered by even the mainstream news as well as that problem with the Florida elections regarding Allen West.

About Franken in 2008, here's an article from one of the mainstream media newspapers:

http://nypost.com/2012/08/09/yes-vote-frauds-real/

There are others from different sources.

AMDG said:

Six cases?

Click to expand...

That's right. Six people were convicted according to the sources I could find that actually spoke about convictions. I don't care to address the rest of your rant because that's not what we were talking about and I'm not playing the game of topic jumping to make people seem more credible. (Hint: You are less credible by topic jumping).

PoliGraph: Voter fraud claim inconclusive | Capitol View | Minnesota Public Radio News

A better story. It does show a number of convictions higher than the source I quoted, but it also shows that an elections manager states that this is due to people being ignorant of their ability to vote or not and it is not some sort of organized effort to rig the election.

Since it's a secret ballot, how exactly does the watchdog group know these people voted for Franken, exactly?

VoterID state Texas has had 50 convictions of voter fraud in the same time period. Those Republicans and their voter fraud! (No evidence exists that Republicans or Democrats were behind it, but I'd decided to pick one because reasons)

LoAmmi said:

That's right. Six people were convicted according to the sources I could find that actually spoke about convictions. I don't care to address the rest of your rant because that's not what we were talking about and I'm not playing the game of topic jumping to make people seem more credible. (Hint: You are less credible by topic jumping).

Click to expand...

We ARE speaking of voter fraud. (Check the thread topic.) It's not me who is saying it doesn't exist by ignoring the news stories.

As far as the Minnesota election in 2008, about 200 felons cast ballots. (Felons are disenfranchised when they are convicted of their crime.) The election itself was so close that the 200 votes could swing it one way--in Franken's favor or in the favor of his opponent. Hmmm--I guess that's why Franken kept on asking for recount after recount until those ballots "magically" appeared and the last recount showed him winning so his opponent finally conceded rather than cost the country more money. In fact, an investigation last year showed that the election in 2008 WAS won because of those votes by felons.

In Minnesota, felons can get their voting rights back after release. You may want to check state laws before saying things that are wrong.

LoAmmi said:

You may want to check ... before saying things that are wrong.

Click to expand...

Past behaviour suggests this is not the case.

LoAmmi said:

In Minnesota, felons can get their voting rights back after release. You may want to check state laws before saying things that are wrong.

Click to expand...

You should be asking just WHEN the person got his voting rights back (since it's supposed to be on a case-by-case basis because only now does AG Holder want to make it "blanket" that convicted felons get their voting rights back.)

From the MinnPost website:

"In Minnesota, to be eligible to register and vote, a felon must have "any felony conviction record discharged, expired, or completed," according to the Secretary of State's Office website."

Armoured said:

Past behaviour suggests this is not the case.

Click to expand...

I've checked (see above post). Did you?

AMDG said:

You should be asking just WHEN the person got his voting rights back (since it's supposed to be on a case-by-case basis because only now does AG Holder want to make it "blanket" that convicted felons get their voting rights back.)

From the MinnPost website:

"In Minnesota, to be eligible to register and vote, a felon must have "any felony conviction record discharged, expired, or completed," according to the Secretary of State's Office website."

Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that you were incorrect in your statement that felons are disenfranchised and can not vote again while I was correct that in Minnesota a felon can get their voting rights back? I'll accept this as your admission. Thank you.

LoAmmi said:

So, what you're saying is that you were incorrect in your statement that felons are disenfranchised and can not vote again while I was correct that in Minnesota a felon can get their voting rights back? I'll accept this as your admission. Thank you.

Click to expand...

No. What I'm saying is that it's a case-by-case basis and that the MinnPost website, the Secretary of the State indicates that the individual felon needs to have his sentence discharged--that is completed--no probation since that is PART of the sentence in order to have his voting rights returned to him. If that wasn't the case, AG Holder wouldn't be wanting all felons to "blanketedly" be able to vote legally. Look, the felons knew that they would lose their right to vote if they did the crime. They simply shouldn't have done the criminal act. We once WERE a nation of laws.

Oh, so they can't get the right to vote back, as you said earlier, but they can get the right to vote back as you said now.

Par for the course.

LoAmmi said:

Oh, so they can't get the right to vote back, as you said earlier, but they can get the right to vote back as you said now.

Par for the course.

Click to expand...

No again, Go read again what I posted from the MinnPost. It's from the Secretary of the State.

A felon doesn't "automatically" get his right to vote back. There are rules. Even AG Holder has tacitly acknowledged that in his request to allow felons the "blanket" right to vote (which they lost because of their crime.)

You, should be asking WHEN the felon got his right to vote back, instead of simply accepting that he has just as much right to vote as those who HAVEN'T committed a crime against society. It is by a case-by-case basis--in Minnesota. Other states have different rules. There is at least one state that is so lax, a prisoner can vote by absentee ballot from prison! Minnesota is NOT such a state.

AMDG said:

I've checked (see above post). Did you?

Click to expand...

I checked all right. That thread where you adamantly insisted that Obama was funding the Taliban because they have a presence in Pakistan and he'd approved aid to the Pakistanis.

AMDG said:

Bush wasn't brought up at all. In fact it seems that he's disappeared from politics. So stop with the comparisons. They don't even exist!

You know, it's almost as if it's being said "well let's give Obama a 'free pass' on some illegal actions done because Bush, or Nixon, or Clinton, or FDR, or Wilson acted similarly." But while you are bringing up lawlessness of Obama and giving him a "free pass", remember that the NEXT president will also be able to act by the same "rules". The precedent will be set. And it just might be a president you DON'T like. So those of you who want to just give a "free pass" to lawless behavior (without even investigating) might want to think on how well they'll be liking living under that!

Click to expand...