Liz Cheney's husband engaged in voter fraud

[Dot Com]

He needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'm a law & order Progressive.

 

[Yurt]

He needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'm a law & order Progressive.

 

[Dot Com]

What? He broke the law. She prolly knew about it as well.

 

[Yurt]

What? He broke the law. She prolly knew about it as well.

thank you rdean for your insight.

 

[Yurt]

lmao

i accused statis of running away and all he does is neg rep me and say he went to bed and told me to learn some manners.

FACT: my post he negged 6pm....his neg rep...12 am...

right...you went to bed, but got up in the middle of the night to neg rep me you pussy

coward

 

[Yurt]

No, even that website, in it's view, claims that Voter Fraud is a sub-rubrik of Electoral Fraud. Other sites claim the other way around. But for the last time: that is all semantics. It is the law at hand that counts, troll, not semantics.

you are jakestarkey's twin liar. it did not claim it is sub rubrik, it claimed it OFFICIALLY is called electoral fraud

Voter Fraud (officially called electoral fraud)

i see statis ran away in shame after realizing what a dunce and fraud he is

FACT:

statis ran away and only cowardly repped his response

what a sissy....he knows he is wrong, why pull a jakestarkey? oh wait...he wants liberal respect....

 

[Statistikhengst]

you are jakestarkey's twin liar. it did not claim it is sub rubrik, it claimed it OFFICIALLY is called electoral fraud

Voter Fraud (officially called electoral fraud)

i see statis ran away in shame after realizing what a dunce and fraud he is

FACT:

statis ran away and only cowardly repped his response

what a sissy....he knows he is wrong, why pull a jakestarkey? oh wait...he wants liberal respect....

Unlike you, I work for a living, and I already countered your point twice. Only, you are apparently too dense to realize it.

But don't worry, I will come back this weekend and finish you off with reams of data, but only if I think you are important enough, which you are probably not.

 

[TooTall]

Most Democrat apparently do not include these Democrats:


Democrats push back against voter ID laws - CBS News

You have a valid point - to a point, and it is indeed salient to this discussion, so I am glad that someone brought it up.

Every state, including ND (which has no Voter Registration at all, nada, zilch, zippo) should have voter ID. It should be part of a national ID system and it should be very inexpensive. The reason why the President and many prominent DEMS are against the current wave of voter ID initiatives in a number of states, most of them RED states, is that the application really is to disenfranchise the poor and the elderly. Many states require a birth certificate with the married name on it + a valid drivers license in order to get a voter ID, and yet, many, many elderly, those born, say, in 1930, don't even have a birth certificate, much less an addended one with the maiden name changed to the married name. Many elderly don't drive anymore, so they don't have a drivers license. This means that they are fucked, plain and simple.

In Pennsylvania, hundreds and hundreds of seniors were denied a vote, many of them WWII, Korean War or Vietnam War veterans. That is an absolute no-go.

These are the kind of tricks that should NOT be allowed.

So, YES to voter ID. No to the Republican way of doing it.

The GOP has been shooting itself in the foot on this issue with regularity. Even some of their leaders have openly stated that their sole aim with the ID is to disenfranchise voters that they believe might vote Democratic.

I need a link that names the Republican leaders that made such a statement, because I don't believe YOU!

 

[JakeStarkey]

i see statis ran away in shame after realizing what a dunce and fraud he is

FACT:

statis ran away and only cowardly repped his response

what a sissy....he knows he is wrong, why pull a jakestarkey? oh wait...he wants liberal respect....

Unlike you, I work for a living, and I already countered your point twice. Only, you are apparently too dense to realize it.

But don't worry, I will come back this weekend and finish you off with reams of data, but only if I think you are important enough, which you are probably not.

Yurt, will now run around shouting you ran away. It's what he does.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've been registered in 4 different states.......but I only voted in one.

The one I lived in.

To be honest, I never unregistered in any of them.

Am I going to go to jail.

That depends on the law of each one of the other three states AND whether you signed a legally binding affadavit or not, stating that you were not registered elsewhere.

Isn't that voter suppression?

 

[Old Rocks]

You have a valid point - to a point, and it is indeed salient to this discussion, so I am glad that someone brought it up.

Every state, including ND (which has no Voter Registration at all, nada, zilch, zippo) should have voter ID. It should be part of a national ID system and it should be very inexpensive. The reason why the President and many prominent DEMS are against the current wave of voter ID initiatives in a number of states, most of them RED states, is that the application really is to disenfranchise the poor and the elderly. Many states require a birth certificate with the married name on it + a valid drivers license in order to get a voter ID, and yet, many, many elderly, those born, say, in 1930, don't even have a birth certificate, much less an addended one with the maiden name changed to the married name. Many elderly don't drive anymore, so they don't have a drivers license. This means that they are fucked, plain and simple.

In Pennsylvania, hundreds and hundreds of seniors were denied a vote, many of them WWII, Korean War or Vietnam War veterans. That is an absolute no-go.

These are the kind of tricks that should NOT be allowed.

So, YES to voter ID. No to the Republican way of doing it.

The GOP has been shooting itself in the foot on this issue with regularity. Even some of their leaders have openly stated that their sole aim with the ID is to disenfranchise voters that they believe might vote Democratic.

I need a link that names the Republican leaders that made such a statement, because I don't believe YOU!

Here you are. And this is not the only example of the GOP leadership coming out and blatantly stating that they are trying to prevent American Citizens from exercizing their right to vote.

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’

“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”

She later adds that early voting “violates the spirit of the Constitution” and facilitates “illegal votes” that “cancel out the votes of honest Americans.” I’m not sure what she means by “illegal votes,” but it sounds an awful lot like voting by Democratic constituencies: students, low-income people, and minorities.

 

[Dot Com]

FACT:

statis ran away and only cowardly repped his response

what a sissy....he knows he is wrong, why pull a jakestarkey? oh wait...he wants liberal respect....

Unlike you, I work for a living, and I already countered your point twice. Only, you are apparently too dense to realize it.

But don't worry, I will come back this weekend and finish you off with reams of data, but only if I think you are important enough, which you are probably not.

Yurt, will now run around shouting you ran away. It's what he does.

thats our Yurt

 

[Statistikhengst]

Unlike you, I work for a living, and I already countered your point twice. Only, you are apparently too dense to realize it.

But don't worry, I will come back this weekend and finish you off with reams of data, but only if I think you are important enough, which you are probably not.

Yurt, will now run around shouting you ran away. It's what he does.

thats our Yurt

Sigh. There's one in every crowd. In school, he was the one who always drove everyone crazy. I think I gave his jaw a readjustment once. I also stole his girlfriend (as if he would know how to get around a pussy, anyway) - think he ended up a dead-ender....

 

[mudwhistle]

The GOP has been shooting itself in the foot on this issue with regularity. Even some of their leaders have openly stated that their sole aim with the ID is to disenfranchise voters that they believe might vote Democratic.

I need a link that names the Republican leaders that made such a statement, because I don't believe YOU!

Here you are. And this is not the only example of the GOP leadership coming out and blatantly stating that they are trying to prevent American Citizens from exercizing their right to vote.

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’

“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”

She later adds that early voting “violates the spirit of the Constitution” and facilitates “illegal votes” that “cancel out the votes of honest Americans.” I’m not sure what she means by “illegal votes,” but it sounds an awful lot like voting by Democratic constituencies: students, low-income people, and minorities.

Illegal votes meaning fraudulent.

 

[TooTall]

The GOP has been shooting itself in the foot on this issue with regularity. Even some of their leaders have openly stated that their sole aim with the ID is to disenfranchise voters that they believe might vote Democratic.

I need a link that names the Republican leaders that made such a statement, because I don't believe YOU!

Here you are. And this is not the only example of the GOP leadership coming out and blatantly stating that they are trying to prevent American Citizens from exercizing their right to vote.

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’

“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”

She later adds that early voting “violates the spirit of the Constitution” and facilitates “illegal votes” that “cancel out the votes of honest Americans.” I’m not sure what she means by “illegal votes,” but it sounds an awful lot like voting by Democratic constituencies: students, low-income people, and minorities.

I preferred the part where she quoted the Constitution.

Early voting is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Article II states, “the Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes, which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Federal law sets the date for national elections on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Early voting increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns because it requires candidates to campaign, to spend and to buy expensive television ads over additional weeks. Early voting increases opportunities for ballot fraud because the necessary poll watchers we expect to be on the job at polling places on Election Day can’t be present for so many days.

Encouraging people to close their minds and cast an irrevocable ballot before all the presidential debates are held is as harmful to a fair outcome as it would be to allow jurors to vote guilty or not guilty before they hear all the evidence in a trial. Hillary Clinton called the North Carolina law’s provisions “the greatest hits of voter suppression,” but the real “hits” are the way illegal votes cancel out the votes of honest Americans.

Read more at North Carolina embraces honest elections

 

[Dot Com]

Wheres Yurt

 

[S.J.]

Yurt, will now run around shouting you ran away. It's what he does.

thats our Yurt

Sigh. There's on in every crowd. In school, he was the one who always drove everyone crazy. I think I gave his jaw a readjustment once. I also stole his girlfriend (as if he would know how to get around a pussy, anyway) - think he ended up a dead-ender....

Wow, I'm really impressed!!!

 

[Yurt]

i see statis ran away in shame after realizing what a dunce and fraud he is

FACT:

statis ran away and only cowardly repped his response

what a sissy....he knows he is wrong, why pull a jakestarkey? oh wait...he wants liberal respect....

Unlike you, I work for a living, and I already countered your point twice. Only, you are apparently too dense to realize it.

But don't worry, I will come back this weekend and finish you off with reams of data, but only if I think you are important enough, which you are probably not.

are you jakestarkey's sock puppet? how did you counter my point, even one time? the only time you gave a counter point and a link was when your link said the same thing i said. that electoral fraud is the same as voter fraud.

yet, you claim you countered me. i don't get it. explain yourself starkey.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt will come back and yell he won: that's what he does when he loses. You indeed, Stat, handed him is electoral ass.

is voter fraud the same as electoral fraud?

yes or no

prediction, jake will not answer this question

and as easily as predicting the rising sun, so again yurt predicts jake will run away from answering questions

jake won't answer this question because it will 1. make him look like a fool and 2. prove his liberal BFF wrong

 

[Yurt]

Wheres Yurt

are voter fraud and electoral fraud to different things?