Voter Fraud? Well, Maybe ...

[CrusaderFrank]

The Democrat primaries were not rigged. Clinton got the nomination because she got 55% of the primary vote.

There were some ethical questions concerning Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but they were minor, and considering that the DNC can legally do anything they want concerning the choice of nominee, those questions are moot anyway.

Fraud is a crime, jackass.

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

Wow

"The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud."

Wow

And that's a good thing too

 

[Muhammed]

There were some ethical questions concerning Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but they were minor, and considering that the DNC can legally do anything they want concerning the choice of nominee, those questions are moot anyway.

Fraud is a crime, jackass.

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

Wow

"The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud."

Wow

And that's a good thing too

I know it's hard to believe, but many Clinton voters really do think it was OK for her cadre of evil minions to rig the election.

They are some really fucked up brainwashed idiots.

 

[Dragonlady]

I just love Republican revisionist history. What was a minor suggestion to keep a radical left-wing independent politician from high-jacking the Democratic Party nomination, has been turning into a full out rigging of the nomination process.

Ignore the fact that Clinton won the nomination fair and square and push any narrative that makes Democrats look bad. Clinton won the primary popular vote in a landslide. She won the nomination in a landslide.

But let's look at everything the Republicans did to try and stop Trump from being their candidate. They even tried to change the nominating convention rules at the last possible minute to turn it into a "brokered" convention. Of course none of that is mentioned anymore.

I'd love to see what the hacking of the RNC emails revealed, but of course Putin didn't release those.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There were some ethical questions concerning Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but they were minor, and considering that the DNC can legally do anything they want concerning the choice of nominee, those questions are moot anyway.

Fraud is a crime, jackass.

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

Wow

"The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud."

Wow

And that's a good thing too

Good or bad are irrelevant, this is a discussion of legal or not.
I am not a Dem so I didn't participate in their primaries.
If you look back through history the current primary system is very new, it has been around less time than I have.
I would also say that I am not sure it is a good system for choosing the candidate for each party. I say this because the quality of the choices we end up having to choose between is getting worse and worse each cycle.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

You are fucked in the head. The DNC is going to lose in court. The only question is how seriously they will be punished.

You are one seriously misinformed person. Where do you get your "news and information" from? Alex Jones?

No.

I got it from the court records.

Where did you get your "information", jackass?

Then you clearly lack the basic intelligence to understand what you are reading.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just love Republican revisionist history. What was a minor suggestion to keep a radical left-wing independent politician from high-jacking the Democratic Party nomination, has been turning into a full out rigging of the nomination process.

Ignore the fact that Clinton won the nomination fair and square and push any narrative that makes Democrats look bad. Clinton won the primary popular vote in a landslide. She won the nomination in a landslide.

But let's look at everything the Republicans did to try and stop Trump from being their candidate. They even tried to change the nominating convention rules at the last possible minute to turn it into a "brokered" convention. Of course none of that is mentioned anymore.

I'd love to see what the hacking of the RNC emails revealed, but of course Putin didn't release those.

How do you know that Putin didn't hack the DNC as well?

 

[Muhammed]

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

You are fucked in the head. The DNC is going to lose in court. The only question is how seriously they will be punished.

You are one seriously misinformed person. Where do you get your "news and information" from? Alex Jones?

No.

I got it from the court records.

Where did you get your "information", jackass?

Then you clearly lack the basic intelligence to understand what you are reading.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

IQ = 158

The odds that your IQ is within 50 points of mine are very slim.

You've officially been given fair warning.

 

[busybee01]

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

There is no legal requirement to even have a primary election, and any practices used are strictly determined by the DNC and can change at any time. Half way through the primary, they could have decided that the final candidate would be determined by a dance competition, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. They could have chosen someone who wasn't even on the primary ballot for their candidate, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. You're whining about something that didn't even concern your party, and that you know nothing about. Why are you doing that?

For the presidential election, there are very specific rules, and there is an investigation happening right now to see if those rules were broken.

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

You are a naive fool. The pantsuit mafia rigged the election for Clinton. The emails prove that. And the DNC argues in court that they are allowed to do that.

Why the fuck are you trying to defend the party of slavery and fascism in the first place?

I look at each event individually and determine whether it is true and whether it is right or wrong. I don't care who does it. Your view is if Democrats do it then it is bad and if Trump or the Republicans do it is okay.

 

[busybee01]

They did not rig an election, moron. The DNC has the right to choose their candidate any way they choose. There is no law that says they have to follow the will of the people that voted. They can give one candidate 1000 extra votes starting off if they want, and it would not be illegal or fraud.

Please learn a little history so you do not so so moronic.

You are fucked in the head. The DNC is going to lose in court. The only question is how seriously they will be punished.

You are one seriously misinformed person. Where do you get your "news and information" from? Alex Jones?

No.

I got it from the court records.

Where did you get your "information", jackass?

Not gonna effect the outcome either way discussing it here. Wait and see how the court case turns out. I guess there is always the possibility you could be right, but I don't see how.

Well, the DNC's argument is that the word "impartial" cannot be defined even though they insist that they were impartial.

Are you intelligent enough to comprehend why that is not a good argument?

I don't think many of you Democrat voters comprehend how much good you could do by throwing the ultra-corrupt two party system into the dustbin of history simply by refusing to vote for any Democrat on the ballot.

The Democrat party reinstituted slavery in the USA several times (WW, FDR, LBJ). Are you pro-slavery? Are you pro fascism? If not you would NEVER vote for a Democrat.

The fact is that the DNC may have supported Clinton but they did not change their rules to favor Clinton. In that sense they were impartial. They could have allowed for winner take all. Clinton would have gotten many more delegates than she already had and wrapped it up much sooner. The fact is that DNC members supported Clinton in 2008 but that did not stop Obama from walking away with the nomination. I wish Republicans would adopt some of the Democrat rules on delegate allocation.

 

[busybee01]

Not fraud if you have the legal right to do what was done.

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

There is no legal requirement to even have a primary election, and any practices used are strictly determined by the DNC and can change at any time. Half way through the primary, they could have decided that the final candidate would be determined by a dance competition, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. They could have chosen someone who wasn't even on the primary ballot for their candidate, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. You're whining about something that didn't even concern your party, and that you know nothing about. Why are you doing that?

For the presidential election, there are very specific rules, and there is an investigation happening right now to see if those rules were broken.

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

 

[Muhammed]

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

There is no legal requirement to even have a primary election, and any practices used are strictly determined by the DNC and can change at any time. Half way through the primary, they could have decided that the final candidate would be determined by a dance competition, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. They could have chosen someone who wasn't even on the primary ballot for their candidate, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. You're whining about something that didn't even concern your party, and that you know nothing about. Why are you doing that?

For the presidential election, there are very specific rules, and there is an investigation happening right now to see if those rules were broken.

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

You are a naive fool. The pantsuit mafia rigged the election for Clinton. The emails prove that. And the DNC argues in court that they are allowed to do that.

Why the fuck are you trying to defend the party of slavery and fascism in the first place?

I look at each event individually and determine whether it is true and whether it is right or wrong. I don't care who does it. Your view is if Democrats do it then it is bad and if Trump or the Republicans do it is okay.

I have never indicated that that was my view. You are clearly mistaken or attempting to set up a strawman argument.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no legal right to rig the election, jackass.

There is no legal requirement to even have a primary election, and any practices used are strictly determined by the DNC and can change at any time. Half way through the primary, they could have decided that the final candidate would be determined by a dance competition, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. They could have chosen someone who wasn't even on the primary ballot for their candidate, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. You're whining about something that didn't even concern your party, and that you know nothing about. Why are you doing that?

For the presidential election, there are very specific rules, and there is an investigation happening right now to see if those rules were broken.

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

 

[Spare_change]

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

Don't be silly. The DNC legally makes and changes their rules as they see fit. Don't like it? Tough.

They broke their own rules instead of changing them, jackass.

I know why I think your vote should not matter. It is because of your obviously low IQ and ignorance. Just as I think a two year old should not be able to vote, I think people like you should not be able to vote.

What I would like to know is why you personally think that your vote should not matter.

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

 

[Spare_change]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

The article was from Breitbart - hardly an unbiased source, based on information from the voter suppression king, who has made a career of seeing voter fraud at every turn. You need better sources before anyone other than the Russian troll farm posters will take this seriously.

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

The article was from Breitbart - hardly an unbiased source, based on information from the voter suppression king, who has made a career of seeing voter fraud at every turn. You need better sources before anyone other than the Russian troll farm posters will take this seriously.

See what I mean?

You discount a story simply because of the source. Can you point to any facts that are false? It obviously is an opinion piece - but you reject it simply because of its source. Better to ignore the crux of the discussion, and attack the source, isn't that right? That way, you don't have to face reality - you can claim a distorted reality that is more comfortable to you.

Quit being so intellectually lazy and consider the possibility that it just might be true - then prove it false. It's not hard - it just takes a little integrity.

 

[Dragonlady]

Liars are going to lie. At best, they will cherry pick facts and half truths and try to make them into something they're not. I have better things to do with my time.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I don't listen when my ex husband talks either. Same reason. Liars are going to lie. That's what they do.

 

[Muhammed]

Don't be silly. The DNC legally makes and changes their rules as they see fit. Don't like it? Tough.

They broke their own rules instead of changing them, jackass.

I know why I think your vote should not matter. It is because of your obviously low IQ and ignorance. Just as I think a two year old should not be able to vote, I think people like you should not be able to vote.

What I would like to know is why you personally think that your vote should not matter.

My vote certainly counts as much as yours does.

That's doubtful because you are obviously a member of the fascist jackass party of slavery.

Why do you think that your vote should not matter?

Why do you think my vote didn't matter? Some of the DNC weren't thrilled with Bernie. So what? Lots in the RNC hated the idea of Trump even participating. What exactly do you think the DNC did that was illegal, or unethical? Be specific.

The structure of the DNC selection process is clearly flawed ... designed to favor, not the people's choice, but the choice of the power elite in the party. The "super delegates" is a fixed game. If you got the money, and are willing to share it, the super delegates flock to you. By the by, your 55% quote includes the bought-and-paid-for super delegates.

I considered Hillary the lesser of two evils, when compared to Bernie - but, the simple truth is Bernie never had a chance. He had the power brokers and the money handlers opposing him. Take a look at the amount of money Bernie got from the DNC, compared to the amount Hillary got, and tell us it was a fair election decided by the people.

Personally I think Bernie could have given Trump a run for his money and likely would have beat Trump. Trump and Sanders had virtually identical policy positions on matters that the lower and middle class voters think are important. They are both USA first. And unlike Hillary, Sanders was not under criminal investigation.

 

[Spare_change]

Liars are going to lie. At best, they will cherry pick facts and half truths and try to make them into something they're not. I have better things to do with my time.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I don't listen when my ex husband talks either. Same reason. Liars are going to lie. That's what they do.

C'mon ---- at least tell the truth.

You're too damn lazy to develop your own opinion about issues - instead, you find meaningless excuses to reject anything you are told not to agree with. Your prejudice is appalling .. but not surprising.

As for your ex-husband .....

 

[busybee01]

There is no legal requirement to even have a primary election, and any practices used are strictly determined by the DNC and can change at any time. Half way through the primary, they could have decided that the final candidate would be determined by a dance competition, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. They could have chosen someone who wasn't even on the primary ballot for their candidate, and they would be perfectly legal to do that. You're whining about something that didn't even concern your party, and that you know nothing about. Why are you doing that?

For the presidential election, there are very specific rules, and there is an investigation happening right now to see if those rules were broken.

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

You "know" whatever Putin thinks you should know

 

[Spare_change]

You are wrong. You legally cannot tell investors that the candidates will be chosen in an impartial manner and then do the opposite. That is fraud.

The DNC's argument that the word "impartial" cannot be defined and that the election was done in an "impartial" manner is self-contradictory.

Don't be surprised if the Democratic party ceases to exist in the near future. The centrist Trump victory against extremely corrupt fascists is merely the beginning of the swamp draining process.

You jackasses are doomed.

The fact is that the Democrat rules for allocating delegates is fairer than the Republican rules. In SC, Sanders got only 26% of the vote and got 26% of the delegates. In the Republican primary, Trump got only 32% of the vote and 100% of the delegates. 68% of the voters in the Republican primary were disenfranchised.

What about the Super Delegates? How many of those went to Bernie?

The fact is that Clinton would have won even without the super delegates. She got 55% of the primary vote. You are not seriously suggesting that Sanders should have won with only 44% of the primary vote. That would be rigging the system.

We'll never know for sure, only Uncle Vlad knows the real numbers. He set the whole thing up: gave Hillary the Dem nomination, gave Trump the electoral college and Hillary the popular vote without leaving a single scrap of evidence as to how he did it. 2018 and beyond will be interesting

We know hat Clinton got 55% of the primary vote. She won the Democrat nomination.

Actually we don't know that at all .... do your research.