Shared Top Border
sdcia_head3.jpg (14795 bytes)
SDCIA Message Board
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 50      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
kevink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 842
Reply with quote  #61 
Haha really? Republicans can only blame themselves for isolating the libertarian Ron Paul voters at the convention, and Romney for going all-in with his pro-war stance which doesn't resonate with them. Why should people be forced to vote with those they don't agree with? Both parties are suffering because more people are catching on to the idea that politicians can't and won't solve our problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Destructive Libertarians and their pursuit of their own perfect:

RaceDemVotesGOPVotesLibVotes(L) %(D) - (R)Margin
IN-SenDonnelly1,268,407Mourdock1,126,832Horning146,4535.8%141,575-4,878
MT-SenTester234,465Rehberg215,701Cox31,2876.5%18,764-12,523
MT-GovBullock234,980Hill226,555Vandevender17,7293.7%8,425-9,304
AZ-01Kirkpatrick117,422Paton109,508Allen14,4506.0%7,914-6,536
AZ-09Sinema108,056Parker101,089Gammill14,3616.4%6,967-7,394
MA-06Tierney179,603Tisei175,953Fishman16,6684.5%3,650-13,018
MI-11Curson159,267Bentivolio151,740Tatar11,6113.6%7,527-4,084
NH-01Shea-Porter171,356Guinta158,482Kelly14,9684.3%12,874-2,094
UT-04Matheson108,275Love105,629Vein5,7032.6%2,646-3,057

As we've perused last week's election returns, we'd noticed a number of races where Libertarian candidates appear to have played spoiler for Republicans—certainly, more than we're accustomed to. While we haven't run a comparison with prior cycles, we've identified no fewer than nine contests in 2012 where the Libertarian received more votes than the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. What's more, none of these involved the typical 1 or maybe 2 percent you ordinarily expect a Lib to garner: Looking at the three-way vote, all but one were over 3 percent, and three took 6 percent or more, with a high of 6.5 percent in the Montana Senate race. These definitely seem like unusually high figures.

So what's going on here? I wouldn't want to speculate too much based on this limited data set. But I could easily believe that a growing proportion of conservative-leaning voters are too disgusted with the GOP to pull the Republican lever, but who won't vote for Democrats either, are choosing a third option and going Libertarian instead. This thesis dovetails with something else we saw this year: independents generally leaning more rightward simply because at least some former Republicans are now refusing to identify with their old party. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that some folks like that don't want to vote for their old party either.

The chart above summarizes our findings, based on preliminary data from the AP, with a big hat-tip to my colleague Jed Lewison. (Note that MI-11 refers to the unexpired term for ex-Rep. Thad McCotter's seat, not the full-two year term that starts in January.) It's too facile to say that without the Lib, every Democrat would have lost. But some very likely would have, so it's reasonable to conclude that the Libertarian Party gifted quite a few seats to Team Blue this year. Thanks, friends!

2:51 PM PT: Incidentally, here's a list of other races where a third party also played a possible role in the opposite direction. The party or parties taking more votes than the difference between the first- and second-place finishers are listed after each race. First up, Republican wins:

AZ-Sen: Libertarian
NV-Sen: "None of the above" and Independent American Party
IN-Gov: Libertarian
CO-06: Libertarian and an independent
IL-13: An independent
IN-02: Libertarian
MI-01: Libertarian and Green
And Democratic wins:
MI-11: U.S. Taxpayers (in addition to Libertarian in chart above)
NY-24: Green
It's hard to imagine the Libertarians helping Republicans in IN-Gov, CO-06, IN-02, and MI-01, just like it's hard to imagine the Green Party helping Democrats in NY-24. However, it's not inconceivable that the Green hurt Dems in MI-01, though that may have been balanced out by the Lib (who got more votes). Something similar may have happened in CO-06 as well. IL-13 is harder to read, and Nevada's unique "none of the above" option is a real scrambler, though the IAP is decidedly right-wing. So is the U.S. Taxpayers party in MI-11, but as we noted, there was also a Libertarian there as well.
 
achab

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 982
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Destructive Libertarians and their pursuit of their own perfect:

RaceDemVotesGOPVotesLibVotes(L) %(D) - (R)Margin
IN-SenDonnelly1,268,407Mourdock1,126,832Horning146,4535.8%141,575-4,878
MT-SenTester234,465Rehberg215,701Cox31,2876.5%18,764-12,523
MT-GovBullock234,980Hill226,555Vandevender17,7293.7%8,425-9,304
AZ-01Kirkpatrick117,422Paton109,508Allen14,4506.0%7,914-6,536
AZ-09Sinema108,056Parker101,089Gammill14,3616.4%6,967-7,394
MA-06Tierney179,603Tisei175,953Fishman16,6684.5%3,650-13,018
MI-11Curson159,267Bentivolio151,740Tatar11,6113.6%7,527-4,084
NH-01Shea-Porter171,356Guinta158,482Kelly14,9684.3%12,874-2,094
UT-04Matheson108,275Love105,629Vein5,7032.6%2,646-3,057

As we've perused last week's election returns, we'd noticed a number of races where Libertarian candidates appear to have played spoiler for Republicans—certainly, more than we're accustomed to. While we haven't run a comparison with prior cycles, we've identified no fewer than nine contests in 2012 where the Libertarian received more votes than the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. What's more, none of these involved the typical 1 or maybe 2 percent you ordinarily expect a Lib to garner: Looking at the three-way vote, all but one were over 3 percent, and three took 6 percent or more, with a high of 6.5 percent in the Montana Senate race. These definitely seem like unusually high figures.

So what's going on here? I wouldn't want to speculate too much based on this limited data set. But I could easily believe that a growing proportion of conservative-leaning voters are too disgusted with the GOP to pull the Republican lever, but who won't vote for Democrats either, are choosing a third option and going Libertarian instead. This thesis dovetails with something else we saw this year: independents generally leaning more rightward simply because at least some former Republicans are now refusing to identify with their old party. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that some folks like that don't want to vote for their old party either.

The chart above summarizes our findings, based on preliminary data from the AP, with a big hat-tip to my colleague Jed Lewison. (Note that MI-11 refers to the unexpired term for ex-Rep. Thad McCotter's seat, not the full-two year term that starts in January.) It's too facile to say that without the Lib, every Democrat would have lost. But some very likely would have, so it's reasonable to conclude that the Libertarian Party gifted quite a few seats to Team Blue this year. Thanks, friends!

2:51 PM PT: Incidentally, here's a list of other races where a third party also played a possible role in the opposite direction. The party or parties taking more votes than the difference between the first- and second-place finishers are listed after each race. First up, Republican wins:

AZ-Sen: Libertarian
NV-Sen: "None of the above" and Independent American Party
IN-Gov: Libertarian
CO-06: Libertarian and an independent
IL-13: An independent
IN-02: Libertarian
MI-01: Libertarian and Green
And Democratic wins:
MI-11: U.S. Taxpayers (in addition to Libertarian in chart above)
NY-24: Green
It's hard to imagine the Libertarians helping Republicans in IN-Gov, CO-06, IN-02, and MI-01, just like it's hard to imagine the Green Party helping Democrats in NY-24. However, it's not inconceivable that the Green hurt Dems in MI-01, though that may have been balanced out by the Lib (who got more votes). Something similar may have happened in CO-06 as well. IL-13 is harder to read, and Nevada's unique "none of the above" option is a real scrambler, though the IAP is decidedly right-wing. So is the U.S. Taxpayers party in MI-11, but as we noted, there was also a Libertarian there as well.
 


Nobody would spoil any Republican's chance to win an election if, in the states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans, the election laws are changed as follows: in each election, voters would pick their first, second, ..., tenth choice. Once all the votes are counted, if nobody has more than 50% of valid non blank votes, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is kicked out, and his votes given to whoever was named second choice in the ballot. The process continues until one candidate has more than 50% of votes.

The above election scheme was used in Oakland (mayoral election I think) a couple of years ago.


__________________
Abdenour Achab
Get 8% to 12% Returns on Your Money to Retire from your job in 3 to 5 years.
abdenour.achab@gmail.com
http://TrustDeedsUniversity.com/courses
SFL

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 568
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by achab


Nobody would spoil any Republican's chance to win an election if, in the states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans, the election laws are changed as follows: in each election, voters would pick their first, second, ..., tenth choice. Once all the votes are counted, if nobody has more than 50% of valid non blank votes, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is kicked out, and his votes given to whoever was named second choice in the ballot. The process continues until one candidate has more than 50% of votes.

The above election scheme was used in Oakland (mayoral election I think) a couple of years ago.



Looks like California has moved further along this path, in switching this year to a new system of primary elections in which the top two vote-getters in primary elections, regardless of party, become candidates in the general election.  Thus, both candidates may end up being from the same party, in which case the more centrist of the two is likely to carry the general election.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/california-s-post-partisan-experiment.html
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL
Quote:
Originally Posted by achab


Nobody would spoil any Republican's chance to win an election if, in the states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans, the election laws are changed as follows: in each election, voters would pick their first, second, ..., tenth choice. Once all the votes are counted, if nobody has more than 50% of valid non blank votes, the candidate with the smallest number of votes is kicked out, and his votes given to whoever was named second choice in the ballot. The process continues until one candidate has more than 50% of votes.

The above election scheme was used in Oakland (mayoral election I think) a couple of years ago.



Looks like California has moved further along this path, in switching this year to a new system of primary elections in which the top two vote-getters in primary elections, regardless of party, become candidates in the general election.  Thus, both candidates may end up being from the same party, in which case the more centrist of the two is likely to carry the general election.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/california-s-post-partisan-experiment.html


SFL  -- the result may be quite the opposite. The new California law actually disenfranchises the minority parties. In fact the Primary election now becomes another General Election, selecting two candidates rather than just one. It will now be impossible for more than two parties to be represented in the General Election for any particular office.

Primary Elections are for one purpose: to select the winning candidate from EACH party. Primary elections are like a favor to the political parties. Only the General Election is required, by law,of the State. In some states Primary candidates are chosen by party caucus, there is no Primary run by the State.

Let's say the Green or Libertarian or AIP were forced out of the General Election by the limited Primary. Those parties could hold a caucus and nominate their respective candidates. Then petition the counties to put their candidate on the ballot. I don't think it is illegal or unconstitutional for a caucus selected candidates to be put on the ballot if it is long established tradition in many other States.

The Democrat party would not like this, the State of California may try to declare the caucus candidates ineligible but this would be difficult to defend in court.

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa

Well, that 'story' about Obama privately orchestrating a kidnapping-gone-haywire in return for the 'blind sheik' is gaining traction.  It has all the earmarks of a Watergate coverup, but worse.

You know I was a skeptic of this latest development, but the details are getting MUCH more interesting.

BTW, how many conspiracies is the official count to ignore, before this house of cards comes down?  Just asking...

-Forged birth certificate. (Never mind)
-No hard copy, soft copy of original BC
(Never mind)
-Used SS number off a dead guy from Connecticut.
(Never mind)
-No school records
(Never mind)
-No passport records
(Never mind)
-Kenyan BC with footprints on it.
(Never mind)
-Biographical claim of Indonesian birth.
(Never mind)
-Qualifying for foreign exchange student grants.
(Never mind)
-Death of two homosexuals from Obama's church with claims of sex from a survivor
(Never mind)

So, really a clandestine arrangement to get reelected using a kidnapping gimmick, at the expense of four Americans just fits the m.o. of this man. 
(Never mind)

As you have listed above the evidence indicates our President has repeatedly violated Federal and State laws throughout his career. There are even unsolved assassinations in the Presidents' personal history. There is a pattern of ruthlessness in the Presidents' past though it is not evidence in the Benghazi fiasco.

Sorry, but this person's a mess, and we're screwed.

Original Story:


Quote:
Quote:
I received this message yesterday. IF this proves to be true, it is impeachable grounds. It also may help explain why Petreaus was forced out a few days before the Benghazi hearings coming up. It explains a lot of behavior by Obama and his administration - the pulled security, the "stand down" orders, and blaming that stupid video. The fireworks are coming. It will be the first of many disasters ahead. Please share.

...

Obama was asked directly in an interview if he denied their request for assistance, he refused to answer, and instead droned on with a canned response promising to "bring those responsible to justice."

This is suspicious, but not yet evidence.

Former CIA and State Dept. personnel are coming out now with damning evidence that indicts President Obama, and reveals the truth about what is going on. Hillary Clinton, who is now openly laying the blame at the feet of the President, after falling on her sword in a premature show of loyalty for the Administration.

Mrs. Clinton has hidden out in Australia, now en route to hiding in Jerusalem to apply her considerable talents to world peace. This is suspicious too, as it occurs just as Congressional hearings on Benghazi began.

The "Video" defense was carefully crafted WEEKS in advance, to explain the attack. If this doesn't outrage you, If you are not moved enough to contact your congressman about this, you are not worthy of your citizenship.

Many in Congress may not be worthy of their citizenship either.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul

Saturday, November 17, 2012

In 37 Chicago Precincts, Romney Received No Votes AND No Votes in 59 Philadelphia precincts.

 
NBC Chicago reports:
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that in 59 Philadelphia precincts, Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. So Ward Room decided to look at the results in the president’s hometown, and see if he won as many shutouts here. The answer: no. Romney was rejected by every voter in only 37 Chicago precincts, an embarrassing result, given that segregation and Machine politics are two of our city’s most notable qualities.
Any doubt there was some vote fraud? Check out this comment on NBC Chicago's website:
In critical swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois there are a lot of precincts in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago which reported 100% of their votes cast for Obama. These add up to many 10's of thousands of votes for Obama and 0 for Romney. I repeat, 0 for Romney. I have read a number of articles about this and people knowlegable in Political Science and Statistics are starting to take notice of this.Statistically, even if among 10's of thousands of voters all wanted to vote for Obama, it would not be possible to receive 100% of the vote because at least a few would make a mistake and vote incorrectly for Romney. Not to mention the fact that a least a few of those 10's of thousands might actually disagree with Obama. These types of election returns are only seen in countries run by dictators.

Here's the link to the above article:
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-37-chicago-precincts-romney-received.html



The latest from Florida in the Allen West contesting of the election reports that the Voter Registrar in one of the key counties (Volusia or St. Lucy) has placed herself into a hospital after discovering 40 precincts went uncounted in the general election.

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
javipa

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,340
Reply with quote  #67 

JC, we still haven't had 'any' explanation as to why the CIA operatives, etc. were told to stand down.  None.  Just silence. 

The MSM's cooperation with Obama's muteness, illustrated by its lack of curiosity, is amazing. 

I'm not totally sure anyone who relies on ABC, CBS, or NBC actually knows there was an attack on the embassy, much less that the government told the military to "stay away (and let the ambassador fend for himself)."


__________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals." --- Henry Ford

"149 Ways (Plus One) To Find Motivated Sellers and Get Them To Find You"
>>>Click To Download http://sub2marketdomination.com/how-to-find-motivated-sellers/
davidoosnk

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 844
Reply with quote  #68 
The last umpteen Presidents have had botched security overseas and the biggest botched security threat preiod was 9/11 under a Republican President. Obama is held to a different standard because extreme right wingers have no respect for the Presidency, and their hatred of Obama (much like preceding the election bubble-vision) will make them oblivious to the facts.

So a terrorist operation killing thousands under a Republican President is OK, but unfortunate botched embassy security is the direct fault of the Democratic President. Welcome to faux noise extremist conservative logic.
kevink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 842
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa

JC, we still haven't had 'any' explanation as to why the CIA operatives, etc. were told to stand down.  None.  Just silence. 

The MSM's cooperation with Obama's muteness, illustrated by its lack of curiosity, is amazing. 

I'm not totally sure anyone who relies on ABC, CBS, or NBC actually knows there was an attack on the embassy, much less that the government told the military to "stay away (and let the ambassador fend for himself)."



Kind of like how Bush purposely let bin Laden get away by ordering a stand down in 2002 when they had him trapped?
javipa

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,340
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa

JC, we still haven't had 'any' explanation as to why the CIA operatives, etc. were told to stand down.  None.  Just silence. 

The MSM's cooperation with Obama's muteness, illustrated by its lack of curiosity, is amazing. 

I'm not totally sure anyone who relies on ABC, CBS, or NBC actually knows there was an attack on the embassy, much less that the government told the military to "stay away (and let the ambassador fend for himself)."



Kind of like how Bush purposely let bin Laden get away by ordering a stand down in 2002 when they had him trapped?


How's that again?


__________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals." --- Henry Ford

"149 Ways (Plus One) To Find Motivated Sellers and Get Them To Find You"
>>>Click To Download http://sub2marketdomination.com/how-to-find-motivated-sellers/
javipa

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,340
Reply with quote  #71 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidoosnk
The last umpteen Presidents have had botched security overseas and the biggest botched security threat preiod was 9/11 under a Republican President. Obama is held to a different standard because extreme right wingers have no respect for the Presidency, and their hatred of Obama (much like preceding the election bubble-vision) will make them oblivious to the facts. So a terrorist operation killing thousands under a Republican President is OK, but unfortunate botched embassy security is the direct fault of the Democratic President. Welcome to faux noise extremist conservative logic.


I will say you're partly correct.  However, making me defend GB is a non-starter.  Meantime, we've had a series of vaginal presidents such as Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton that paved the way for GB to fail. 

Meantime Clinton, the most estrogen-influenced vaginal-generator of them all, couldn't make a distinction between a crime and a military attack during his presidency.  Thus we lost lives at the Twin Tower bombing, the Cole bombing, and whatever else.

Thus again, NOTHING changed in intelligence processing or gathering.  It remained compartmentalized between each government agency, to the point that any and all actionable information was confusing, and unable to be interpreted. 

Why GB didn't take the lead and force all the agencies to share 'everything' with each other, and stop the 'union shop' organizing method of intelligence operations is anyone's guess.  But to blame Bush, is really a non-starter. 

Clinton was bombing empty pill factories, because he didn't have correct intel to know better.  Flailing is not the result of good intelligence gathering, processing and sharing.  Meantime, Bush didn't create the intelligence dysfunction.  He just perpetuated it. 

Just like his dad and four other presidents, they each assumed we had no enemies that were 'as' determined, as Muslim Jihadists, to damage us.  And van-bombing a Twin Tower wasn't a clue.  And either was the Cole sitting with a big hole in the side. 

We've had the blind, leading the deaf, leading the mute when it came to intelligence sharing and gathering.  We've been abjectly incompetent at protecting Americans, until Bush.  And when he (and everyone else) got caught with his pants down on 9/11, we then found out how incompetent our leaders have all been at surveying and preparing for a serious threat. 

After that, Bush went on a tirade of intelligence rehabbing, and forced everyone to share 'everything' (which ticked off every government agency that was guarding turf).  Bush went 'far' with his pursuits as we saw when he signed the Patriot Act into law.

Since then, we've lost more constitutional protections than we could ever imagine.  Then what happened?

We got Obama.  What did he do?  He continued every single thing Bush started, except he ignored threats because he lives in ObamaLand where the mere statement that the terrorists have been defeated, or 'on the run' is enough to deny all requests for protection.

So, the president lives in denial, AND there is absolutely NO privacy, or protections against the government.  None.

Worse still, since Obama has taken office, only two of the Bill of Rights is still intact today. 

We also have no representation in Washington that is both willing, and able to unwind the damages of the constitutional scofflaws.  Bush and now Obama, both set the constitution on it's head, and every single thing the Founding Fathers warned against is now fact.

And just to add insult to injury, our president deliberately abandons any constitutional responsibility to protect Americans from either foreign or domestic threats, despite having all the tools at his disposal.  It's as if his position is, if we don't use force, none will be needed. 

In fact, he'll watch an attack happen on our embassy property and personnel, and go to bed with instructions to 'let them all die.'  Other than reckless abandon of the constitution, what else can be attributed to this president's lack of response and ruthless adherence to a political fantasy? 

 

 


__________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals." --- Henry Ford

"149 Ways (Plus One) To Find Motivated Sellers and Get Them To Find You"
>>>Click To Download http://sub2marketdomination.com/how-to-find-motivated-sellers/
Paul

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,037
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevink
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa

JC, we still haven't had 'any' explanation as to why the CIA operatives, etc. were told to stand down.  None.  Just silence. 

The MSM's cooperation with Obama's muteness, illustrated by its lack of curiosity, is amazing. 

I'm not totally sure anyone who relies on ABC, CBS, or NBC actually knows there was an attack on the embassy, much less that the government told the military to "stay away (and let the ambassador fend for himself)."



Kind of like how Bush purposely let bin Laden get away by ordering a stand down in 2002 when they had him trapped?


How's that again?



Jay---The guy seems to proudly state he doesn't vote---what do you expect?
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javipa

JC, we still haven't had 'any' explanation as to why the CIA operatives, etc. were told to stand down.  None.  Just silence. 

Right, someone gave that order. It could have come from CIA, State or Defense or the President.

The MSM's cooperation with Obama's muteness, illustrated by its lack of curiosity, is amazing. 

The MSM after 4 years of covering for the Presidential mishaps is now fully exposed as WH propaganda ministry. Their audiences are shrinking, down 75% over the last several years. Fox pulls as much as the top 3 combined.

I'm not totally sure anyone who relies on ABC, CBS, or NBC actually knows there was an attack on the embassy, much less that the government told the military to "stay away (and let the ambassador fend for himself)."

Fewer and fewer rely on ABC, CBS or NBC. I haven't watched them in over a decade and a half, perhaps more.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidoosnk
The last umpteen Presidents have had botched security overseas and the biggest botched security threat preiod was 9/11 under a Republican President.

David --- is the Left still blaming Bush for all of Obamas' problems? At what point does Obama have to accept responsibility?

Obama is held to a different standard

I think you are right about this.

He was born in another country, just as he described in his own autobiography published for 7 years in this country. No other President has been given this privilege with the exception of the Founders who all died about 180 years ago.


Mr. Obama has kept his college transcripts under a Presidential seal to prevent public awareness.
He was able to borrow an SSN from a deceased Connecticut man.

The multiple murder of 3 of his gay friends from Chicago has never been solved and he seems unmotivated to catch the killer(s).

No other President has been held to such strange standards.

because extreme right wingers have no respect for the Presidency, and their hatred of Obama (much like preceding the election bubble-vision) will make them oblivious to the facts. So a terrorist operation killing thousands under a Republican President is OK,

David -- why not try implicating Richard Nixon for Mr. Obamas' failures, the Bush attacks are tiresome and ineffective. Add some variety to your routine. Maybe Ronald Reagan caused Mr. Obamas' Benghazi fiasco.

but unfortunate botched embassy security is the direct fault of the Democratic President.

He is the President, and it seems everyone else has denied giving the order for Embassy security personnel to endure the attack not fight it. The buck has to stop somewhere. We've just learned that Susan Rice was unaware of the truth, Hillary's out of town but has admitted responsibility but denies issuing the order denying aid or counter action to the Embassy attack.

That only leaves two possibilities David, it was either Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.

Welcome to faux noise extremist ... logic.

Again I have to agree with your extremist logic.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
davidoosnk

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 844
Reply with quote  #75 
Jay, Johnny and others,

There is a famous quote out there that goes something like most conspiracy theories can best be explained by incompetence. Even though we disagree on a lot, you won't find me defending the competence of this admin or any other in recent memory. Foreign policy aside, what they collectively let happen to the American standard of living is deplorable.

That said, we do have a lot to be thankful for in that we have the freedom of expression and opinion in this country that many others don't.

So HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
javipa

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,340
Reply with quote  #76 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidoosnk


Jay, Johnny and others, There is a famous quote out there that goes something like most conspiracy theories can best be explained by incompetence. Even though we disagree on a lot, you won't find me defending the competence of this admin or any other in recent memory. Foreign policy aside, what they collectively let happen to the American standard of living is deplorable. That said, we do have a lot to be thankful for in that we have the freedom of expression and opinion in this country that many others don't. So HAPPY THANKSGIVING!



I love mixing real estate, politics and thankfulness together!!! 

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, David (and everyone else)..!


__________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals." --- Henry Ford

"149 Ways (Plus One) To Find Motivated Sellers and Get Them To Find You"
>>>Click To Download http://sub2marketdomination.com/how-to-find-motivated-sellers/
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #77 
Jay, David and to everyone else Happy Thanksgiving.
__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #78 
Programmer Testifies Before Ohio State Legislature He Rigged Voting Machines


Clinton Curtis testified under oath to the Ohio State Legislature that he wrote voting machine programs to split the vote count 51% to 49% for any candidate his client wanted. The fraud would be undetectable to those who operated the voting machines. The only two ways to detect the fraud are to do a manual count of votes and compare the real split to that of the computer OR to examine the program source code line-by-line.

When asked he testified "anyone could do it".

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=Hbf3iaEbAuY&fulldescription=1[/video]

Use this link if the video doesn't display:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=Hbf3iaEbAuY&fulldescription=1

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #79 
Interesting Election Statistics

 " Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it. "


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
javipa

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,340
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Interesting Election Statistics

 " Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it. "



Yes.

__________________
"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goals." --- Henry Ford

"149 Ways (Plus One) To Find Motivated Sellers and Get Them To Find You"
>>>Click To Download http://sub2marketdomination.com/how-to-find-motivated-sellers/
Paul

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,037
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCash
Interesting Election Statistics

 " Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it. "



I posted previously on this thread:

Just remove the dishonest media from the above formula and that alone would have been enough for a Romney win. He lost by a total of 360,000 votes in New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio and Florida---that out of 20 million cast in those states. Those states would have given him the Electoral College win.


As you can see, the margin is even less with a New Hampshire win rather than a Colorado win. All the talk about how the GOP has to make huge changes and move to the center drives me crazy. Rather than discussing voter fraud, illegal Obama campaign contributions and MSN dishonesty, the pundits fall for the strawman and get involved in irrelevant discussions rather than the true issues.

The GOP has lost three Presidential elections by going with the "next in line" dude. Romney was a much better candidate than Dole and McCain (McCain was awful) but he is still a Northeastern liberal and only conservative when compared to a far-left radical such as Obama. Find a true conservative who can communicate conservative values. I notice the media attacks on Rubio are already starting.
Paul

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,037
Reply with quote  #82 
Can't get me enough Bill Whittle:





JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #83 
Good points on the vote and electoral counts Paul. This is hardly the Obama landslide the press has portrayed.

Somewhere between 360,000 and 407,000 votes the entire election turned and in just a handful of states, 4 or 5. The obvious point is that small number of votes is easily within the margin of fraud.

__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #84 
Not a happy family portrait, but Father Knows Best.

Trump kids plead with Donald about Obama?

Report claims children tried to impact father's voice

Published: 1 hour ago

Donald Trump and his children Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr.

PALM BEACH, Fla. – Did the children of billionaire developer Donald Trump hold an intervention for their father to get him to tone down his harsh criticism of the president?

The New York Daily News reports the Palm Beacher’s “hatred of Barack Obama allegedly led his three eldest kids to do an Obama-vention before the election.”

The paper says Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr. had talked with each other about telling their famous father to take the anti-Obama rhetoric down a notch, and then made the collective decision to confront him.

The meeting reportedly took place in mid-October, and a source who knew of the intervention told the Daily News: “The three of them met and went to see their dad in his Fifth Ave. office. They showed a lot of respect, but told him he’s worked too long and too hard to build up the reputation he has. They understand completely he’s always been outspoken and that he likes attention, but this is too much.”

The “kids said they know it’s not helping,” added the source. “They told him you can’t throw this all away on this nonsense. … They want their dad to get respect and then the whole family does well.”

A representative for Trump has denied any such meeting took place, and told the paper, “They would never ever do that. It never happened. It’s simply untrue.”

Before the election, Trump had made headlines by offering $5 million to charity if Obama would release his college and passport records. The president has steadfastly refused.

Trump had also been among the loudest voices pushing for Obama to release his long-form birth certificate.

Then in April 2011, the president released an image of what he claimed to be that document, and Obama said at the time: “I know that there is going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest,” Obama said. “But I am speaking for the vast majority of the American people as well as for the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness.

“We have better stuff to do. I have got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve.” “We are not going to be able to do it if we are distracted, we are not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other … if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, we are not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., had his Cold Case Posse probe the authenticity of Obama’s documents, and found probable cause they had been forged.

“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said at the time.

Trump personally thanked Arpaio for his efforts, writing on a news story about the probe, “Joe – Great going – You are the only one with the ‘guts’ to do this – Keep up the good fight – Donald Trump.”

Donald Trump's note praises Sheriff Joe Arpaio for investigating President Obama's eligibility

On Election Night of this year, Trump tweeted, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”

He tweeted more than 10 angry messages, saying “our nation is a once great nation divided” and “the world is laughing at us.” He also encouraged a “revolution in this country.”

Those messages were later deleted by the Donald.

Previous stories:

Donald Trump: Say it is so, Sheriff Joe

O’Reilly: My probe better than Sheriff Joe’s

Arpaio: ‘Probable cause’ Obama certificate a fraud

What does law say about Obama’s eligibility?

Alinsky-style leftist ramps up effort to oust Sheriff Joe

100,000 line up to back Sheriff Joe

Obama backer arrested for death threats against Sheriff Joe

Justice Department blinks in battle against Sheriff Joe

Anti-Arpaio protesters ousted from meeting

Another protest against Sheriff Joe fails

Obama’s harassment of Sheriff Joe

‘Resign now’ protest against Sheriff Joe fizzles

Sheriff Joe targeted for ouster

Sheriff Joe ‘suspicious’ of motive behind Obama attacks

Sheriff Joe to Obama: I’ll keep doing my job

Arpaio gets death threats over Obama investigation

Sheriff Joe on Obama eligibility probe: ‘Where there’s smoke … ‘


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #85 
The margin of voter fraud could far exceed the 360,000 to 407,000 votes from 5 states which turned the election in the Presidents' favor.

How Widespread is Voter Fraud? | 2012 Facts & Figures

Here are the facts:

How popular is Voter ID?


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
Paul

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,037
Reply with quote  #86 
November 26, 2012
Oh, We Forgot to Tell You . . .

Tribune Media Services

The second-term curse goes like this: A president (e.g., Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc.) wins re-election, but then his presidency implodes over the next four years — mired in scandals or disasters such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the Iraqi insurgency and Hurricane Katrina.

Apparently, like tragic Greek heroes, administrations grow arrogant after their re-election wins. They believe that they are invincible and that their public approval is permanent rather than fickle.

The result is that Nemesis zeroes in on their fatal conceit and with a boom corrects their hubris. Or is the problem in some instances simply that embarrassments and scandals, hushed up in fear that they might cost an administration an election, explode with a fury in the second term?

Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a US drone in international waters.

Coincidentally, we just learned that new food stamp numbers were "delayed" and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.

Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.

Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama's plan of letting tax rates increase for the "fat cat" 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.

Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted Dream Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-Dream Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?

Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted due to the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protestors mad over a 2-month-old video — just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.

The real postelection mystery is why we ever had a secondary consulate in Benghazi in the first place, when most nations had long ago pulled their embassies out of war-torn Libya altogether.

Why, about a mile from the consulate, did we have a large CIA-staffed "annex" that seems to have been busy with all sorts of things other than providing adequate security for our nearby diplomats?

Before the election, the media was not interested in figuring out what Ambassador Christopher Stevens actually was doing in Benghazi, what so many CIA people and military contractors were up to, and what was the relationship of our large presence in Libya to Turkey, insurgents in Syria and the scattered Gadhafi arms depots.

But the strangest "coincidentally" of all is the bizarre resignation of American hero Gen. David Petraeus from the CIA just three days after the election — apparently due to a long-investigated extramarital affair with a sort of court biographer and her spat with a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.

If the affair was haphazardly hushed up for about a year, how exactly did Petraeus become confirmed as CIA director, a position that allows no secrets, much less an entire secret life?

How and why did the FBI investigate the Petraeus matter? To whom and when did it report its findings? And what was the administration reaction?

Coincidentally, if it is true that Petraeus can no longer testify as CIA director to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the ignored requests of CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi for more help, can he as a private citizen testify more freely, without the burdens of CIA directorship and pre-election politics?

It has been less than two weeks since the election, and Obama seems no exception to the old rule that for administrations which manage to survive their second terms, almost none seem to enjoy them.

The sudden release of all sorts of suppressed news and "new" facts right after the election creates public cynicism.

The hushed-up, fragmentary account of the now-unfolding facts of the Libyan disaster contributes to further disbelief.

The sudden implosion of Petraeus — whose seemingly unimpeachable character appears so at odds with reports of sexual indiscretion, a lack of candor and White House backstage election intrigue — adds genuine public furor.

The resulting mix is toxic, and it may tax even the formidable Chicago-style survival skills of Obama and the fealty of a so far dutiful media.
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #87 
Paul --- the above list is impressive and almost complete. Note vote fraud was not listed.
__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #88 
More Reports of Vote Fraud

THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports

108% of voting population endorses Obama

Published: 11/13/2012 at 8:53 PM

WASHINGTON – The outcome of the Nov. 6 presidential election shocked almost everyone, with very few analysts expecting Barack Obama to win so decisively and to take so many of the “battleground” states that seemed to be pulling toward Romney.

But then the reports of voting irregularities started leaking out, then gushing out – like the 59 different Philadelphia voting divisions in which Mitt Romney received zero votes compared to Obama’s 19,605. And the Cleveland precinct in which Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. (In fact, Romney received zero votes in nine Cleveland precincts.) And in one Ohio county – widely considered ground zero for the election – Obama received 106,258 votes from 98,213 eligible voters – an impossible 108 percent of the vote. And that’s just the beginning.

WND is compiling a list of reports documenting voting irregularities and apparent fraud during the 2012 presidential tabulation. These reports include:

The Market Daily News reported on those 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that on election day gave Romney zero votes, and Obama got 99 percent. “In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less,” the report said. “One would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there.”

According to Philly.com, 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia produced a “head-spinning figure,” not one vote for Romney. “The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence,” the newspaper said.

A poll watcher told WND up to 10 percent of the ballots cast at a polling station in Pennsylvania reverted to a default, which gave Barack Obama a vote no matter who the voter had selected. The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama got a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio where Obama got 99 percent of the vote, a feat not even achieved by third-world dictators. It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

Read WND’s blockbuster special report on the left’s multifaceted voter strategy for winning the 2012 election by any means necessary.

Chicago elections worker Steve Pickrum told WND as an equipment manager for the elections system, he was called when a voting machine malfunctioned. “On early voting when I did work on the floor when voters needed help using the equipment, I was able to see the preference of the voter, and every time that I saw [a] voter voted for Romney a ‘voter save failure’ message came up on the screen,’” he reported. Then when he went on election day to vote himself, he picked Romney and experienced the same error message. He reported he never experienced the error message when the voter was choosing Barack Obama.

Another poll worker, this one assigned at the University of Michigan, reported to WND a list of irregularities, including that the precinct captain told her at one point, “You go sit down, you are bothering me,” when she was trying to observe the proceedings. “I was only standing there and looking at voter documents,” she told WND. “It was clear that what bothered him was my very presence.” She said a short time later a young man arrived and identified himself as a Democrat poll challenger. “The first time he said anything was to object to my challenge of a voter. He tried to anger the voter by telling her ‘She does not believe you are who you say you are.’ He was trying to create a scene. It then happened again and I told him ‘You are not here to challenge me!’ His reply was a very loud ‘Yes I am! You are a Republican and you are here to prevent people from voting. You are holding up the line and creating obstructions,’” she reported. She told WND in fact no one waited more than about 15 minutes to vote the entire day, and there were no obstructions.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports that some 200,000 fewer white voters were recorded in Ohio’s election this year than in 2008. “There are several theories about those missing white voters, but the most plausible is that the ones who were undecideds or weak Republicans were deeply influenced by Obama’s relentless attacks on Romney…”

And in Florida, the Sun Sentinel reported that election workers a week after the election said they found 963 unaccounted-for ballots – in a warehouse. “How can you lose them? This is terrible,” candidate Chickie Brandimarte told officials. Election supervisor Brenda Snipes, however, said it’s routine for various vote totals to be adjusted up until the Nov. 18 final certification.

Stand up to fight against voter fraud right now!

Also in Florida, residents began demanding changes in the electoral system that handed voters chaos, frustration and delays at polling stations. The Florida League of Women Voters and other groups are demanding from Gov. Rick Scott a plan to draft reforms for the state’s elections.

Fox News reported that voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio also said they had pushed a button on a touch-screen voting machine for Romney, but the machines recorded their vote for Obama.

At the White House website, a report in the Examiner explains, there was posted a petition seeking a recount of the race. “In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes … but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It’s not humanly possible to get 108 percent of the vote,” the petition claims.

Fox News reported that two election judges were replaced after illegally allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

The Columbus Dispatch estimated that more than 20 percent of registered Ohio voters aren’t eligible. “In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population,” the report said. And, it said, in 31 other counties, registrations are above 90 percent of the population, “a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts.”

Fox News also documented how Senate candidate Wendy Long, an attorney who was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, recounted her voting experience. “A poll worker who was at the scanner studied my private ballot and proceeded to tell me that it was rejected because I did not ‘fill in every space.’ She then proceeded to indicate that I should mark the Democratic line all the way down.”

WND’s newest forum is your opportunity to report voter fraud

On YouTube was the testimony of a computer programmer, telling the Ohio Legislature that he was able to write a program that would rig elections by flipping the total vote from the real winner to a pre-selected candidate.

The Washington Times reported that officials in Florida banned observers from seeing the absentee ballots being opened and “there was no way to know whether the absentee ballots that were produced were the same ones that were opened, or if all the ballots were produced.”

Human Events claimed Ohio voters who are native to Somalia were being given a slate card saying, “Vote Brown all the way down” – an apparent reference to the Democratic senator.

The Washington Times reported its suspicions of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, including that “in Philadelphia, the [New] Black Panthers are currently standing outside polling booths, intimidating voters just like they did in 2008.” It said, too, that 70 Republican polling inspectors were blocked from access.

A blog, Punditpress, reported “In Florida: Obama Got Over 99% in Broward County Precincts”

The same site reported: “What Luck! Obama Won Dozens of Cleveland Districts with 100% of the Vote”

There also was the report about “Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration”

And Punditpress also reported: “BREAKING: St. Lucie County, Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County”

Further, it said: “Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors Were Removed; Turnout Somehow ’30%’ Above Gov’t Numbers”

“Out of 175,554 registered voters, 247,713 vote cards were cast in St. Lucie County, Florida, on Tuesday”

“Colorado counties have more voters than people”


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #89 
State Legislator Requests the FBI to Investigate Voting Machines

FBI asked to probe Obama 'vote-changing' machines

State lawmaker says she has concerns over election tampering

Published: 10 hours ago

A state lawmaker in Maryland has asked the FBI to impound two voting machines used in the 2012 election to determine whether there was a malfunction or something nefarious going on.

“I just feel it is my duty to try to get to the bottom of this,” state Delegate Kathryn Afzali told WND today. “We’re not making any accusations. The Board of Elections are good people. They have checks and balances … but we want to make sure everything is fair.”

She said a number of people contacted her after the Nov. 6 election to report that they pressed a touch-screen button for GOP candidate Mitt Romney, but the vote registered for Barack Obama.

WND has reported a number of first-hand accounts of similar anomalies during the election. One touch-screen technician reported that voters in another state were getting error messages on their touch-screens when they tried to vote for Romney.

Also, suspiciously, a number of precincts reported a 100-percent vote for Obama, and some even reported beyond 100 percent.

“My request [to the FBI] is … I want them to take these machines. Let an FBI computer expert analyze them,” she said.

She said that among those who contacted her with concerns were two  officials, including a state lawmaker who personally experienced a vote machine changing his vote three times to the party whose agenda he opposed.

The lawmaker told her that his computer background left him confident that the problem was beyond a technical glitch, and he insisted that the election judge take the machine out of service and lock it up.

Another concern was raised by Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild. who said it’s critical that the machines be analyzed properly to determine what happened.

“We need to freeze them in their current state, not wipe out data,” he said.

He said his constituent reported the same scenario as has been reported: hitting the touch-screen button for Romney but finding that that it registered for Obama.

Rothschild said it’s a major problem that has to be addressed in order for Americans to continue trusting their election system.

He said the constituent noticed the vote changes on the summary screen.

“It showed Obama as being selected,” Rothschild told WND, even though his constituent reported voting for the GOP ticket.

After talking with a few other people, this concern seems to be increasing,” Rothschild told WND. “There are just two possible answers. Either he made a mistake, or something caused that machine to switch the vote.”

He said given that his constituent has experience with computers, the contention that he didn’t know how to use the machine seems a stretch.

“I know how easy it would be to introduce a single spurious line of code,” Rothschild told WND, noting a programmer could easily instruct the machine to change the vote periodically, so a routine test wouldn’t reveal any problems.

He said he was told the county had no jurisdiction over the issue and that it would be up to the state, which is why he discussed the concerns with Afzali.

“It’s very scary,” Rothschild told WND. “It creates a sense of helplessness and hopelessness.”

That, in turn, he said, results in people feeling desperate about their failure to impact government.

“If American people feel they cannot trust their voting system, there’s the possibility of more desperate action,” he said. “There are a number of possibilities [for reaction] in nullifications, secession, including throwing off such governments.

“If people think their voting processes do not work, [if] they conclude they are not being afforded constitutional protections, they may conclude their only option is to throw off such government,” he said.

He said the forensics of voting machine examination would be very important, but a good investigatory review could provide a lot of answers.

“We have all seen little pieces of the problem,” he said.

But to determine what is a problem, he said some sort of overview perspective would be needed.

Not only do authorities need to do a review, future elections need to be done so that every voter is given a printed copy of his or her own vote. The copies could be compiled by clerks to provide a point of reference if questions arise, he said.

Afzali told WND that because she’s on the state elections committee, a number of people came directly to her with their complaints.

She said the two machines that were identified now are locked up with all the other equipment, but she’s asked the FBI step in and take custody of them.

WND previously reported in U.S. Rep. Allen West’s re-election fight in Florida, a surge of thousands of votes went to his opponent late in the evening.

“If we do not have integrity in our election process then we don’ t have the exceptionalism as a constitutional republic, we don’t have a rule of law,” West said.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
JohnnyCash

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,617
Reply with quote  #90 
Effective in the recent election, Class Warfare will be institutionalized in future elections.

Democrat operatives launch class-warfare website

'More of our elections going forward will feature' divisive tactic

Published: 23 hours ago

A George Soros-funded radical think tank with close ties to the Democratic Party has launched a new website urging politicians and activists to wage class warfare while hailing what it calls a new era in politics – the use of class warfare to win elections.

WageClassWar.org was launched last week by the Campaign for America’s Future, or CAF.

CAF’s co-director, Robert Borosage, explained the need for such a website.

“America’s growing diversity and its increasingly socially liberal attitudes played a big role in this election. But looking back, we are likely to see this as the first of the class warfare elections of our new Gilded Age of extreme inequality,” he wrote in a statement.

“More and more of our elections going forward will feature class warfare – only this time with the middle class fighting back. And candidates are going to have to be clear about which side they are on,” he wrote.

Continued Borosage: “In 2012, candidates who supported the economic interests of the many over the few won their elections. Populism was the voice, but economic opportunity was the message. The pundits may wring their hands, but in the future it won’t be values voters, angry white men or soccer moms that win elections. It will be class war.”

The website does not feature a mission statement and is unclear about exactly how the group will go about attempting to wage class warfare.

The site explains how Obama’s 2012 campaign utilized class warfare and set the stage for the deployment of such tactics in future elections.

“Obama’s campaign built its message on class war battles that broke out in the Republican primary, as challengers sought to bring down ‘the main from Bain,’ Mitt Romney,” notes the site.

“In the end, the keys to Obama’s reelection were his calls for raising the taxes of the wealthy and his support for reinvesting those revenues in education and jobs to rebuild the middle class and to protect programs like Medicare from cuts.”

The site hails how Obama repeatedly portrayed Romney as a “walking example of the out-of-touch elite, an opponent of the auto industry bailout that saved an entire manufacturing sector, and a 1 percenter who would jeopardize social programs, education, and Medicare in order to cut taxes on his rich friends.”

CAF writes that Obama’s reelection now sets the stage “for class warfare as a potent and necessary tool to promote rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, rather than perpetuate the right wing’s failed trickle-down policies.”

Occupy, Soros, Democratic Party

WND previously reported how CAF has partnered with Occupy.

CAF is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute as well as by the Soros-funded Tides Center, which channels funding to hundreds of progressive and far-left groups.

Tides has been connected to the Occupy movement since its beginning.

Another grantee of Tides is Adbusters magazine, which is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after “Arab Spring” protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for Occupy’s planning.

MoveOn.org, which has joined Occupy, is funded by Tides. CAF’s board of directors includes MoveOn.org President Eli Pariser.

CAF’s co-founder and director Roger Hickey, who also co-founded the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute, was reportedly heavily involved in crafting the foundations for President Obama’s health-care law.

CAF campaigns for universal health care, immigration reform and progressive education initiatives.

CAF is deeply tied to progressive politicians from the Democratic Party, many of whom routinely are featured at CAF events.

Just last year, Nancy Pelosi was the featured speaker at CAF’s “America’s Future Now” conference in Washington, D.C.

In 2008, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., was honored at CAF’s annual dinner for her “advocacy in Congress,” noted Discover the Networks.


__________________
"Nothing knits man to man like the frequent passage, from hand to hand, of cash." Walter Richard Sickert
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Policy