http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/iowa-voter-fraud_n_4455110.html

Voter fraud is 'widespread', eh?

GOP-tards!

LoLz!

lol there's no voter fraud to be found. Its so funny.

It's fucking Iowa.

Try it in SoCal, NY, FL, or the mother of all voter fraud Chicago.

Lib-tards!

LoLz!

Iowa is the most pivotal state when it comes to multi candidate primary presidential races. Iowa voters have more influence than another voters during presidential elections because they influence subsequent primaries.

If you cant find it where there is that much incentive, you aint finding it. People arent willing to commit a crime to vote you idiot.

Would you? Who the fuck is going to create a criminal liabity for themselves to cast a meaningless vote? You have no proof because it doesnt exist in this country.

Massive vote fraud requires an organized effort. One that would be very hard to execute in this country.

influence subsequent primaries


Er, it's the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. But hey, those voices in your head...

THTY4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try it in SoCal, NY, FL, or the mother of all
> voter fraud Chicago.

Show me your evidence, Buck-O, or GTFO.

GOP-tards!

LoLz!

"Iowa voters have more influence than another voters during presidential elections "


Santorum > Romney
Guliani & Romney > McCain
Edwards > Obama & Clinton
McCain > Bush
Muskie > McGovern
Bush > Reagan

Yeah, they really influence those elections, don't they?

Moron.

FBG2 is stupid again... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> influence subsequent primaries
>
>
> Er, it's the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire
> Primary. But hey, those voices in your head...


Do you understand the word "subsequent?"

Do you understand the word "subsequent?"

Sure do.

Do you understand the words "influence", "Caucus", and "primary"?

He's going to teach me about the Iowa caucases. He's so smart.

Damning with faint praise.

teach me about the Iowa caucuses

Which 1) are a caucus, and 2) a very mediocre predictor of success.

You, OTOH, held them up as some sort of icon...

you have no point. your point is Iowa caucuses have no more significant than any subsequent caucuses or primaries so there is no more incentive for vote fraud. Whatever thats your opinion. No one cares.

you have no point

You tried to make a point as to how relevant Iowa is. I proved that it's only relevant to those with too much time on their hands combined with limited brain capacity.

You = fail.

So you are making the point that the results of primaries and caucuses have no affect on subsequent primaries and caucuses? You know that there is ample historical data and polling shifts that proves scientifically otherwise.

You've proven once again to be a worthless troll.

This is common knowledge, this is accepted fact. This isn't even debated.

Barack Obama has been the president of the United States for five years because the Iowa caucus put him there.

You know that there is ample historical data

Data = reality. Not the voices in your head. You tried to make a point, and just like your "infrastructure", Kentucky governor, and others, you flamed out with wild inaccuracies.

Heh.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are making the point that the results of
> primaries and caucuses have no affect on
> subsequent primaries and caucuses? You know that
> there is ample historical data and polling shifts
> that proves scientifically otherwise.
>
> You've proven once again to be a worthless troll.


Nope. Actually they don't really. About all that they do is to cull some of the weakest candidates who are done anyway. They can give at least a temporary reprieve to a weaker candidate. They have a rather poor record otherwise.

bK9WV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you are making the point that the results of
> > primaries and caucuses have no affect on
> > subsequent primaries and caucuses? You know
> that
> > there is ample historical data and polling
> shifts
> > that proves scientifically otherwise.
> >
> > You've proven once again to be a worthless
> troll.
>
>
> Nope. Actually they don't really. About all that
> they do is to cull some of the weakest candidates
> who are done anyway. They can give at least a
> temporary reprieve to a weaker candidate. They
> have a rather poor record otherwise.


That's called influence, you just made my point while arguing against it.

You said "Iowa is the most pivotal state".

Now it's just "influence".

You = FAIL

I said both. You're such a fucking idiot. Now you've gone from their not to a semantic argument over whether I said pivotal or influence. What a dipshit you are.

"I said both"

We know. And we're all laughing at you.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FBG2 is stupid again... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > influence subsequent primaries
> >
> >
> > Er, it's the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire
> > Primary. But hey, those voices in your head...
>
>
> Do you understand the word "subsequent?"


Don't you have some teenagers to exploit, Radiophile?

STFU Vexxed.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol there's no voter fraud to be found. Its so
> funny.


Except they found it.

Insignificant. You're an election stealer. Thief. Only problem is it hasnt worked out for you. Cheaters never prosper.

In college, I would bring water bottles with cheat sheets glued to the inside of the wrapper on the water bottle. I would usually get A's.

I cheated, and I prospered.

Remember Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell in 2005? You might want to read up on your history a bit before slamming Mark Obenshain for this costly $150,000 recount bill that the taxpayers will cover.

#1: The recount is fully warranted. Obenshain did not bend any rules in asking for the recount. The Democratic party has this same option when the time comes and they are 165 points behind..

#2: Prior to the legislation that Creigh Deeds introduced, the process for rescanning all the optical ballots was not required. For this last recount, it would have potentially meant that the recount may have been wrapped up in a single day vs. taking 3 days due to the requirement of scanning 300,000 ballots.

Yes. History. Read it!

yet I post dribbles about diebold and VOTEFRAUD!!!!11!!!!!

Gawd, I'm stupid.