FAIRFAX, Va. — An election-integrity group is challenging the status of nearly 15,000 voters reportedly registered in both Fairfax County and Maryland.

Virginia Voters Alliance on Wednesday urged Fairfax’s electoral board to do what state officials have so far not done across the commonwealth: Purge those duplicate voters.

Watchdog has reported that as many as 43,896 people hold active voter registrations in both Virginia and Maryland.

OF THAT TOTAL, 50.0 PERCENT WERE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND 20.4 PERCENT WERE REPUBLICANS IN MARYLAND. The remainder belong to other parties or were independents.

Election fraud in Virginia can be classified as a “false statement,” a Class 5 felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500.

http://watchdog.org/166263/fairfax-maryland-duplicate-voters/

This has been addressed before, but holding an active registration and using it are two entirely different things. Most states have poor voter registration controls. My MIL took four years to get off the roles in VA after she moved west. And she worked for a Senator. Telling the registars had no effect. It should be automatic, once you register in one state, the previous gets cancelled and removed, but it doesn't.

50 % versus 20 %

So you are saying that Democrats move from state to state at over twice the rate that Republicans do?

Give a dog a bone...

Give it up already! This is bureaucratic oversight, not a scandal. Not everything is a Goddamned conspiracy - except, of course, to you people.

50 % versus 20 %
So you are saying that BUREAUCRATIC OVERSIGHTS happen to Democrats more than twice as often as happen to Republicans?

So, they're claiming that they can identify the party affiliation of every voter?

I smell more bullshit from a right-wing propaganda group.

QUOTE : "The remainder belong to other parties or were independents."

DontVoteTwiceLibs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FAIRFAX, Va. — An election-integrity group is
> challenging the status of nearly 15,000 voters
> reportedly registered in both Fairfax County and
> Maryland.
>
> Virginia Voters Alliance on Wednesday urged
> Fairfax’s electoral board to do what state
> officials have so far not done across the
> commonwealth: Purge those duplicate voters.
>
> Watchdog has reported that as many as 43,896
> people hold active voter registrations in both
> Virginia and Maryland.
>
> OF THAT TOTAL, 50.0 PERCENT WERE REGISTERED
> DEMOCRATS AND 20.4 PERCENT WERE REPUBLICANS IN
> MARYLAND. The remainder belong to other parties or
> were independents.
>
> Election fraud in Virginia can be classified as a
> “false statement,” a Class 5 felony punishable
> by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to
> $2,500.
>
> http://watchdog.org/166263/fairfax-maryland-duplic
> ate-voters/


Damn, you butt-hurt republitards just can't admit defeat, can you? Just give up already, your time has passed.
Attachments:

The findings did not say that many people had double voted. It said that 17 appeared to have voted in both places. That is the illegal part.

I know when I moved to Virginia-many years ago- I asked how it worked, since I was registered in another state. I got a vague answer. Maybe I am still registered there.

However, 17 double votes is too many. Remember, this just applies to FFX county and Maryland. Wonder how many are double registered and double voted from Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William, etc?

A public school education does that. Libs can't remember if they voted or how many times. Counting to six a real challenge (unless they put down the protest sign).

Does this warrant investigation, probable arrest and fixing? Yes.
Does this warrant rabid outrage at voter fraud conspiracy? No.

Brian Schoeneman, secretary of the Fairfax County Electoral Board, looked into the 17 cases flagged locally, comparing them with data provided by Montgomery County officials. A couple cases involved absentee ballots, but most of the people appeared to have physically crossed state lines to vote twice, he said. “If these are the same folks, they knew what they were doing. It’s a Class 6 felony.”

One of the cases involves someone who appears to have voted in both Maryland and Virginia for the past decade, George said.

Members of Fairfax’s Electoral Board asked the Fairfax County commonwealth’s attorney, the state attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the 17 people for possible voter fraud.

“Seventeen potential voters out of 700,000 registered voters in Fairfax — it’s a drop in the bucket,” Schoeneman said. “But one is too many.

It wouldn't let me attach the link at first, sorry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-officials-say-some-people-may-have-crossed-state-lines-to-vote-twice-in-2012/2014/08/28/391b4210-2edb-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

Voter fraud does exist. The dems know this, and they encourage it by telling libturds to vote twice, and if you don't know how just ask Jim Moron's son, he teaches a how to voter fraud class.

I don't dispute voter fraud happens. There will always be criminals of some sort everywhere. What I do dispute that it makes a significant difference...in 2012 election, suspected voter fraud instances made up something like one hundred thousandth of a percentage point.

For instance, in this thread, 17 suspected instances of people voting illegally in Fairfax County, with 700,000 registered voters.

That comes to 0.0000242% of the voting electorate.

Does it exist? Probably. Is it statistically significant? Hardly.

Yes, but... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't dispute voter fraud happens. There will
> always be criminals of some sort everywhere. What
> I do dispute that it makes a significant
> difference...in 2012 election, suspected voter
> fraud instances made up something like one hundred
> thousandth of a percentage point.
>
> For instance, in this thread, 17 suspected
> instances of people voting illegally in Fairfax
> County, with 700,000 registered voters.
>
> That comes to 0.0000242% of the voting
> electorate.
>
> Does it exist? Probably. Is it statistically
> significant? Hardly.

If it's so insignificant why do Dems shit their pants over voter ID?

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter fraud does exist. The dems know this, and
> they encourage it by telling libturds to vote
> twice, and if you don't know how just ask Jim
> Moron's son, he teaches a how to voter fraud
> class.

Ah yes! Wouldn't you know the dumbest fucking asshole poster on the internet would latch onto this one. What a hopelessly ignorant fucktard. Listen up, douchebag: Everyone knows that voter fraud -- like solar eclipses -- actually exists. It's just that both of them are really, really rare. And most actual voter fraud is of course committed by crooked election officials not by actual voters. Exactly NONE of the 17 cases suggested above has been shown to be an example of voter fraud. That's NONE -- as in 0%. It's just more stupid alarmist bellowing by the usual America-hating morons who don't know the difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. These are people who, to hear them tell it, believe that elections can be and regularly are decided by voters named Mickey Mouse and Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. This is exactly how FUCKING DUMB the right-wing is. Their vaunted voter-ID laws do not address actual vote fraud at all. Voter impersonation -- the only form of fraud these laws could affect -- is virtually unheard of. These laws of theirs actually have one and only one purpose -- to keep likely Democratic voting groups away from the polls. It's vote suppression pure and simple and exactly nothing more. Might as well bring back poll taxes and literacy tests, you worthless traitorous assholes.

^^^^

Keep Schilling Asshole for the Party Line.. Few are believing you. Democrat voting fraud is as old a issue as there ever was. Now tell us that Chicago voting fraud for Kennedy in 1960 did not give him the election. LOL

They can get welfare they can get a photo ID big deal. Whos being kept from the polls. Dems act like every one in this country today is Ma and Pa Kettle living in some shack wayyy back in them thar hills. Never heard of radio, TV ..


Photo Id or No Vote No Welfare No Food Stamps No More Fraud !

MohammedThePig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it's so insignificant why do Dems shit their
> pants over voter ID?

How fucking dumb are you, asshole? Actual voter fraud is extremely rare. Not nearly rare enough are these perverse voter-ID laws that simply seek to create disenfranchising hurdles and barriers for as many eligible voters as possible if they happen to be members of groups that traditionally vote for Democrats -- students, minorities, the urban and rural poor, etc.

Why do you think Republicans shit their pants over the voter registration drives of ACORN? I'll tell you why. It was because they were aware of the fact that if eligible minority voters had actually gotten to the polls at the same rate as eligible white voters did in 2006, more than 7 million additional ballots would have been cast, a no doubt sizable majority of them for Democrats. ACORN was lining more and more of those 7 million eligible voters up to get out and actually vote at last. That's what the hater-Republicans could not tolerate. Republicans as it is are being driven into obscurity by demographics. The Party of Old White Men will not last long at all if millions of eligible voters who don't like them suddenly get out and vote. Clearly, those votes must somehow be suppressed. So you make phony videos to discredit ACORN. You pass voter-ID laws to keep the enemy away. That's the modern Republican Party for you. Perverted America-hating assholes from top to bottom.

Asshole Report #14-5079 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MohammedThePig Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If it's so insignificant why do Dems shit their
> > pants over voter ID?
>
> How fucking dumb are you, asshole? Actual voter
> fraud is extremely rare. Not nearly rare enough
> are these perverse voter-ID laws that simply seek
> to create disenfranchising hurdles and barriers
> for as many eligible voters as possible if they
> happen to be members of groups that traditionally
> vote for Democrats -- students, minorities, the
> urban and rural poor, etc.
>
> Why do you think Republicans shit their pants over
> the voter registration drives of ACORN? I'll tell
> you why. It was because they were aware of the
> fact that if eligible minority voters had actually
> gotten to the polls at the same rate as eligible
> white voters did in 2006, more than 7 million
> additional ballots would have been cast, a no
> doubt sizable majority of them for Democrats.
> ACORN was lining more and more of those 7 million
> eligible voters up to get out and actually vote at
> last. That's what the hater-Republicans could not
> tolerate. Republicans as it is are being driven
> into obscurity by demographics. The Party of Old
> White Men will not last long at all if millions of
> eligible voters who don't like them suddenly get
> out and vote. Clearly, those votes must somehow
> be suppressed. So you make phony videos to
> discredit ACORN. You pass voter-ID laws to keep
> the enemy away. That's the modern Republican
> Party for you. Perverted America-hating assholes
> from top to bottom.


ACORN and voter registration fraud

Voter REGISTRATION drives conducted by ACORN and affiliated entities have led to controversy and allegations of vote fraud.
The organization has been accused of different types of misbehavior with regard to voter registration drives:
Failing to adequately monitor and supervise its employees to the point where the organization should be held responsible for what the employees did.
Turning in "massive numbers" of duplicate REGISTRATION cards.
Turning in registration cards for fictional characters.
Turning in registration cards filled out by children.
Turning in registration cards where the signatures had been forged.
Timeline

2009
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Latoya Lewis pled guilty on October 12, 2009 on charges of voter REGISTRATION fraud. Lewis, who was working for ACORN when she committed the acts in 2008 that led to her guilty plea, said she was trying to "meet her quota as a paid registrar."[1]

2008
In Orange County, Florida, ACORN staffers submitted multiple, duplicate REGISTRATIONS on behalf of six separate voters over this summer. One individual had 21 duplicate applications. Election Supervisor Bill Cowles and his staff protested, noting in a June memo that ACORN had been submitting sloppy forms as well.[2]
The Michigan Secretary of State office told the Detroit Free Press that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote.[3]
In Lake County, Indiana, election officials discovered "dozens of ACORN-delivered registration forms they believe contain inaccurate voter information, including one in which a dead man from Gary was listed as the applicant." The applications were not processed.[4]
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sean Cairncross, the Republican Party's chief lawyer said that ACORN is "engaged in systematic fraud and attempts to undermine our electoral system." This was in the wake of a report that had hired at least seven felons as voter registration workers in the city. As of early October, Milwaukee election officials have referred to the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office 49 cases of people who submitted potentially fraudulent registration cards.[5]
An ACORN employee in West Reading, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for IDENTITY THEFT and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.[6]

2007
In Washington, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time.[7] ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to King County PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."[8][9]
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Claudel Gilbert was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false REGISTRATION, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. He pled guilty to the illegal voting charges, his lawyer claiming voter confusion rather than criminal intent. The charges of false REGISTRATION were dropped by the Franklin County prosecutor's office. Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye sentenced Gilbert to probation for one year and fined him $500 but suspended a six-month prison sentence[10]
In Missouri, four ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City for charges including IDENTITY THEFT and filing false registrations during the 2006 election.

2006
On November 1, 2006, four part-time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud. Prosecutors said the indictments are part of a national investigation.[11] ACORN said in a press release that it is in part responsible in these individuals being caught, fired them, and cooperated and publicly supported efforts to look into the validity of the allegations.[12]

ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified.[13][14]
The Richland County (South Carolina) Voter Registration Office in October 2006 heard from a person who had received a new voter registration card without applying for it. On investigation, the office discovered the application had been turned in by an ACORN worker. The State Law Enforcement Division investigated the situation. They discovered that ACORN had recruited four Benedict COLLEGE students to register new voters. The group's political advisor found some had questionable entries, eventually firing all four workers. Two of the students were charged with election law violations for false swearing in applying for registration. In 2009, the case was settled and no penalties that may have been assessed against the students, who were minors at the time of the irregularities, were announced in public.[15]

2005
In Colorado in January 2005, two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter REGISTRATIONS.[16] ACORN's regional director said, "we find it abhorrent and do everything we can to prevent it from happening."[17]

In Virginia, the State Board of Elections admonished Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote. Many of these registrations carried social security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or commercial addresses, or were for CONVICTED FELONS in violation of state and federal election law. In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of the voter REGISTRATION applications ACORN turned in were ineligible. Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote, “information appears to have been altered on some applications where information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with § 24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."

2004
In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms.[18]
In Texas, ACORN turned in the voter REGISTRATION form of David Young, who told reporters “The signature is not my signature. It’s not even close.” His social security number and date of birth were also incorrect.
In Pennsylvania, the director of elections in Reading reported receiving calls from numerous individuals complaining that ACORN employees deliberately put inaccurate information on their voter registration forms. The Berks County director of elections said voter fraud was “absolutely out of hand,” and added: “Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registration but we have blatant duplicate voter REGISTRATIONS.” The Berks County deputy director of elections added that ACORN was under investigation by the Department of Justice.
In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press reported that “overzealous or unscrupulous campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to REGISTER nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters.” ACORN-affiliate Project Vote was one of two groups suspected of turning in the documents.
In Florida, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman said ACORN was “singled out” among suspected voter registration groups for a 2004 wage initiative because it was “the common thread” in the agency’s FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS.


http://ballotpedia.org/ACORN_and_voter_registration_fraud

Ismellit Ismellshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep Schilling Asshole for the Party Line..

"Schilling"? Nice fucking work, asshole. And by the way, you're still the biggest fucking moron goober asshole on the internet. A mindless bot/troll whose never actually functional brain finally flat-lined a long, long time ago.

So one more time for the exceptionally stupid: Voter fraud -- and particularly voter impersonation fraud -- is all but non-existent. These are not "threats to democracy" or even significant problems within the electoral system by any stretch of the imagination. Your fucked up asshole friends and programmers however knowingly lie through their fucking teeth about the situation simply because they do not want the young, the poor, or minorities to be able to vote in the numbers that they are actually eligible to. THAT'S ALL THIS IS FUCKING ABOUT, DUMBASS. But you are too much of a worthless fucking asshole to understand even the completely obvious when it stares you right in the face. What a simply pathetic piece of goober trash you are.

MohammedThePig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ACORN and voter registration fraud...

Voter REGISTRATION fraud, did you say, you blithering idiot? Then you would be just another example of the incomprehensibly dense dumbfucks who are not able to understand that "voter fraud" and "voter registration fraud" are two completely different things. Try to get that through your pitifully inadept little head, dumbshit. In the meantime (and there will be lots of that), what you might want to do is go off and count up the number of times ACORN was actually CONVICTED of voter registration fraud. Let us know when you get to one. Talk is fucking cheap, moron. Ask the worthless goober, John McCain. Or the hateful Mitch McConnell. Facts of course are much harder to come by. That's why the right-wing simply doesn't bother with them.

^^Facts of course are much harder to come by. That's why the right-wing simply doesn't bother with them.


Thats why Obama "never lies, or exaggerates" Right foul mouth one ??

"you can keep your doctor...you can keep you medical insurance".

His legacy is going down the drain fast...just as your "facts" are

Dems are always telling the truth..What a laugh LOLOLOL You complete asshole...

MARCH 17, 2011 LAKE COUNTY, IL

Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter fraud

LAKE COUNTY, Ill. - An illegal alien from the Philippines was arrested Thursday morning on a felony complaint charging her with 17 counts related to voter fraud in Lake County. The state charges resulted from a joint investigation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Lake County State's Attorneys Office. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also provided assistance.

Maria Azada, 53, of Grayslake, Ill., was arrested March 17 by ICE HSI agents and a Lake County State's Attorneys special investigator. Azada faces 17 felony counts in Lake County Circuit Court of perjury, mutilation of election materials, and tampering with voting machines in connection with illegal voting by a non-U.S. citizen.

The investigation began in February 2009 when Azada admitted to a USCIS officer during an interview for an immigration benefit that she had voted in an election. It is illegal for foreign nationals to vote in national or state elections in the United States.

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakecounty.htm

The problem with voter fraud isn't that it exists, the problem is that so many people think that it exists in large enough numbers that it is swaying elections. Is that true? We have zero way of knowing for sure, because given the limitations of the existing system, it's impossible to determine how much voter fraud is actually happening.

It's rarely prosecuted, even when there is ample evidence of it. Thus those who say "it rarely happens" can simply point to the prosecution numbers. In-person fraud is difficult to discover because we no longer live in a world where everybody knows their neighbors, especially in Northern Virginia with a heavily transient population.

Voter ID does two things - it makes it very difficult for individuals to engage in person fraud and it restores public faith in the elections process by reassuring voters that fraud is being prevented in an effective way. Voter ID, the way Virginia is doing it, is the fairest solution and will have the least impact on anybody voting. We're providing free IDs to anybody who doesn't have them, and the Commonwealth Department Of Elections is sending letters to everybody registered who doesn't have a DMV file to make sure they know what they'll need. It should not have an impact on turnout. Both political parties have large incentives to get their voters whatever IDs they need before election day, and I'm confident they will help us do that.

I am more concerned about the belief that voter fraud is endemic. That is actually a bigger problem than voter fraud itself, in my opinion. That belief raises cynicism about the electoral process, it is divisive, it reduces voter turnout and it undermines the legitimacy of our government. Every time Democrats win an election, Republicans claim they stole it and vice versa, it just makes it that much harder for anything substantive to get done.

People who scream "you're a dipshit" to everybody who disagrees with them don't help the process either.

As for the 17 we referred, we are waiting on the outcome of the investigations to find out how many of them were actual cases. From what I saw a good number of them appear to be, because there was just too much information that matched for it to be a coincidence of similar names, etc. That means either the named voter was voting twice, or someone stole their identity and used it to vote illegal - either way, that's still fraud and we need to find out what is going on there and put a stop to it.

Voter registration fraud is a problem because it starts the process of actual voting improperly. Whether it's non-citizens registering, felons registering, or people registering in dual locations, that needs to be reviewed and stopped and it's hard to do that across state lines. We have a multi-layered defense against it, but things still fall through the cracks.

These are legitimate issues and should be dealt with maturely. We owe to everybody, regardless of what side you're on, to not dilute your voting power by allowing fraud and those not qualified to vote to do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2014 05:22PM by BrianSchoeneman.

Is anyone actually checking citizenship? I cannot prove it, but I have valid reasons--a couple of anecdotal ones--to believe that non-citizens are actually voting. I do know that OFA was quite successful in registering a lot of immigrants at stores. It just seems to me that people going through the citizenship procedures would register right away and not wait for a drive to do so. Also, why do we need translators for people who have passed the citizenship test? It just doesn't make sense to me.
A friend asked about this at the DMV and was told that they are not allowed to ask citizenship status. Does anyone ever check the registrations with citizenship status?

This was one of the more surprising things I learned when I took this job - we have no real way of checking citizenship. When someone registers, they are asked under penalty of perjury if they are a citizen, and if they say yes, we take their word for it.

We routinely cross-check our data with DMV data for those who have told DMV they aren't citizens, and (before I was on the board) we referred 200+ folks to the Commonwealth's Attorney who got out of jury duty by claiming non-citizenship. Since the jury pool is populated from the voter rolls, nobody should be claiming non-citizenship. We don't have access to e-verify or any other federal citizenship databases.

As for registration of new citizens, in Fairfax, we have a voter registration table staffed by our Office of Elections staff outside of every citizenship ceremony to register folks as soon as their citizenship is conferred.

In terms of translators, there are exceptions in the citizenship requirements to the English language proficiency rules that enable some folks to get citizenship without being proficient. And even for those who are citizens and have passed the proficiency test, proficiency to pass the test doesn't mean they understand the nuances of English or are confident enough to handle legal transactions like voting. The translators help speed up the process, as well as help folks exercise their rights and protect those rights from folks who would seek to take advantage of their lack of language skills to either prevent them from voting or trick them into voting for one side or the other.

Thanks for the explanation, Brian. From some things I have observed, I have reason to think that it is being seriously abused. Someone needs to fix this--but I guess until we get GOP in charge, it won't happen. If Fairfax County found 200 who admitted to not being citizens on the voter rolls, there is a problem. After all, not everyone gets called to jury duty.

ICE News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MARCH 17, 2011 LAKE COUNTY, IL
> Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter fraud

Three and a half years ago. The word "convicted" does not appear. There is no association with ACORN. I suppose this could be just the tip of the iceberg, but it isn't. Voter impersonation fraud is all but non-existent. Republicans scream about it only because they need cover for their discriminatory vote suppression schemes.

Well the AG only won by a couple thousands votes if I remember. Does this mena we can have a new AG since about 15,00 votes for the socialist where fake?>

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was one of the more surprising things I
> learned when I took this job - we have no real way
> of checking citizenship. When someone registers,
> they are asked under penalty of perjury if they
> are a citizen, and if they say yes, we take their
> word for it.
>
> We routinely cross-check our data with DMV data
> for those who have told DMV they aren't citizens,
> and (before I was on the board) we referred 200+
> folks to the Commonwealth's Attorney who got out
> of jury duty by claiming non-citizenship. Since
> the jury pool is populated from the voter rolls,
> nobody should be claiming non-citizenship. We
> don't have access to e-verify or any other federal
> citizenship databases.
>
> As for registration of new citizens, in Fairfax,
> we have a voter registration table staffed by our
> Office of Elections staff outside of every
> citizenship ceremony to register folks as soon as
> their citizenship is conferred.
>
> In terms of translators, there are exceptions in
> the citizenship requirements to the English
> language proficiency rules that enable some folks
> to get citizenship without being proficient. And
> even for those who are citizens and have passed
> the proficiency test, proficiency to pass the test
> doesn't mean they understand the nuances of
> English or are confident enough to handle legal
> transactions like voting. The translators help
> speed up the process, as well as help folks
> exercise their rights and protect those rights
> from folks who would seek to take advantage of
> their lack of language skills to either prevent
> them from voting or trick them into voting for one
> side or the other.

Ismellit Ismellshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats why Obama "never lies, or exaggerates" Right
> foul mouth one ??

LOL! Obama is a politician, you worthless ignorant derp.

> "you can keep your doctor...you can keep you
> medical insurance".

Not if your doctor quits or your carrier cancels your plan. How fucking dumb are you?

> His legacy is going down the drain fast...just as
> your "facts" are.

Your legacy as a dumbfuck and total asshole is quite intact.

> Dems are always telling the truth..What a laugh
> LOLOLOL You complete asshole...

Go fuck yourself, moron. It'll be the best thing that happens to you all day.

There weren't 15,000 fradulent votes. Just because there were 15,000 dual registrations doesn't mean that all of those folks voted, and that all of those votes were illegal.

The AG race had a 957 final vote margin. Even in 2012, which had a much higher turnout because of the presidential, the two outside groups who did an audit of voter records in Maryland and Virginia only came up 164 apparent dual voters in all of Virginia. Even if each of that 164 was an actual double vote and they all went for Herring, it still wouldn't have impacted the race. Even throwing in potential dual voters in West Virginia, DC, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee - all of the Virginia border states, it's unlikely to hit 957 votes even in the worst case scenario.

This is a purge not voter fraud fuck up op. How do you call trying to purge the rolls fraud.

Whats wrong with these stupid paranoid insecure delusional Republicans. They give me headache.

They are Orwiellian authoritarian totalitarians that play like they're victims absolutely stunned America doesn't allow it to destroy it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2014 07:58PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ICE News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MARCH 17, 2011 LAKE COUNTY, IL
> > Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter
> fraud
>
> Three and a half years ago. The word "convicted"
> does not appear.


"Azada admitted to a USCIS officer during an interview for an immigration benefit that she had voted in an election."


> There is no association with
> ACORN.


Different post dummy.

But since you asked:

Hey Brian, nice shot. Gerry the rat smells cheese, and he pokes his rat head out and spews bullshit, Hey Gerry.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with voter fraud isn't that it exists,
> the problem is that so many people think that it
> exists in large enough numbers that it is swaying
> elections. Is that true? We have zero way of
> knowing for sure, because given the limitations of
> the existing system, it's impossible to determine
> how much voter fraud is actually happening.

Those limits belong TO YOU, Brian. Others are not constrained by them...

"A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent. The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000."

It took eight seconds to pull this up. There are scholarly works written on the topic that go into much greater detail, but reach the same conclusions. You seriously need to pay a lot more attention to things if you expect to be taken seriously on this or any other topic.

> It's rarely prosecuted, even when there is ample
> evidence of it.

LOL! Name a case where ample evidence was ignored by a prosecutor. You'd have a much, much easier time finding cases where prosecutors have filed on the basis of no reliable evidence at all. Again, you are a long way out of the loop here.

> Thus those who say "it rarely happens" can simply
> point to the prosecution numbers.

The burden of proof is on YOUR goober party. You are the ones who are screaming from the rooftops that democracy is being threatened. Where's the BEEF, Brian? Fact is, THERE ISN'T ANY BEEF. You don't have a case to make. Nada, zip, zero.

> Voter ID does two things - it makes it very
> difficult for individuals to engage in person
> fraud and it restores public faith in the
> elections process by reassuring voters that fraud
> is being prevented in an effective way.

LOL! What are you doing about the dangers of elephant stampedes? They are just about as common around here as voter impersonation fraud. And the only reason the general public has any concern at all over the matter is that the champions of YOUR goober party keep screaming about it for no legitimate reason. And you left out a third thing -- creating unwarranted hoops and barriers to legitimate exercise of the franchise. Hindrances that fall disproportionately on those likely to vote against you. What a coincidence, eh?

> Voter ID, the way Virginia is doing it, is the fairest
> solution and will have the least impact on anybody
> voting. We're providing free IDs to anybody who
> doesn't have them, and the Commonwealth Department
> Of Elections is sending letters to everybody
> registered who doesn't have a DMV file to make
> sure they know what they'll need.

Why are the things needed to register to begin with not sufficient? Why is there this special second round of hoops that certain people need to jump through?

> It should not have an impact on turnout.

Turnout is hardly the issue, Brian. It affects individual voters by making it more difficult for them to vote. Especially if they are from a group that traditionally votes Democratic. That's wanton vote suppression, Brian, and IT STINKS.

> I am more concerned about the belief that voter
> fraud is endemic. That is actually a bigger
> problem than voter fraud itself, in my opinion.

Then have your Republican yammerers stop pushing the idea, for God's sake. It's YOUR people who are 100% responsible for this. It is THEY who are making up and spreading the lies.

> People who scream "you're a dipshit" to everybody
> who disagrees with them don't help the process
> either.

Are you suggesting that there are no actual "dipshits" on this forum, Brian? Seriously? I can only speak for myself, but I don't go around calling people dipshits unless they have in fact shown themselves to be dipshits.

> As for the 17 we referred, we are waiting on the
> outcome of the investigations to find out how many
> of them were actual cases.

So still at zero then. How long have "the investigations" been ongoing now? How much longer do you think they will take? But suppose we go with the unlikely and assume that all 17 cases are eventually confirmed. What sort of molehill would that amount to in your view?

> Voter registration fraud is a problem because it
> starts the process of actual voting improperly.

No, it's a problem because it creates needless waste of time and money over at the county clerk or registrar's office. Mickey Mouse does not get registered. No one claiming to be Mickey Mouse actually shows up and votes on Election Day. But resources are diverted into dealing with bogus claims and forms. That's the problem.

> Whether it's non-citizens registering, felons
> registering, or people registering in dual
> locations, that needs to be reviewed and stopped
> and it's hard to do that across state lines. We
> have a multi-layered defense against it, but
> things still fall through the cracks.

So basically, you and your pals are incompetent? Is that the take-away here? You just can't do document matching?

> These are legitimate issues and should be dealt
> with maturely. We owe to everybody, regardless of
> what side you're on, to not dilute your voting
> power by allowing fraud and those not qualified to
> vote to do so.

How very exclusionary. Would never have guessed your affiliation from that sort of pabulum.

>Re: Voter Fraud in VA -- mostly Democrats

Posted by: Asshole Report #14-5079 ()

Date: September 14, 2014 07:46PM


Ismellit Ismellshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats why Obama "never lies, or exaggerates" Right
> foul mouth one ??

LOL! Obama is a politician, you worthless ignorant derp.

> "you can keep your doctor...you can keep you
> medical insurance".

Not if your doctor quits or your carrier cancels your plan. How fucking dumb are you?

> His legacy is going down the drain fast...just as
> your "facts" are.

Your legacy as a dumbfuck and total asshole is quite intact.

> Dems are always telling the truth..What a laugh
> LOLOLOL You complete asshole...

Go fuck yourself, moron. It'll be the best thing that happens to you all day.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Asshole Democrat gets Owned! Resorts to Democrat Name Calling HA HA HA HA HA Has GOT NOTHING...

ACORN = VOTER FRAUD

Gerry backs into his rat hole and waits...

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Azada admitted to a USCIS officer during
> an interview for an immigration benefit that she
> had voted in an election."

You took her unsupported word for it, didn't you? Would you take her word for anything else? Anything at all?

> Different post dummy.

Same mindless stupidity.

> But since you asked:

LOL! You've been scammed, dumbo. Those are all VRF cases, That's Voter Registration Fraud, not Voter Fraud. Learn the difference. VRF by ACORN employees would be akin to shoplifting by Macy's associates. It is a crime against the employer, in this case for the purpose of receiving wages that were not earned. ACORN worked long and hard to identify bad apples among its thousands of canvassers and turned over the evidence gathered against them to authorities. You can go back to Square-1 now.

Get a grip, Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Those limits belong TO YOU, Brian. Others are not
> constrained by them...
>
> "A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000
> cases of alleged election fraud over the past
> dozen years shows that in-person voter
> impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted
> 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher
> voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent. The
> analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21,
> a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project,
> found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter
> impersonation since 2000."
>
> It took eight seconds to pull this up. There are
> scholarly works written on the topic that go into
> much greater detail, but reach the same
> conclusions. You seriously need to pay a lot more
> attention to things if you expect to be taken
> seriously on this or any other topic.

No, those limits exist. That study was done on reported cases of fraud. You can't report cases that you don't know exist, and as I've said before, it's very, very difficult to ferret some of this fraud out because of the way the system works. But I am not arguing that fraud is endemic. Just that we don't have any way of knowing how big a problem it is.

> LOL! Name a case where ample evidence was ignored
> by a prosecutor. You'd have a much, much easier
> time finding cases where prosecutors have filed on
> the basis of no reliable evidence at all. Again,
> you are a long way out of the loop here.

There's a case in Fairfax County - the first that we referred to the Commonwealth's Attorney while I was on the Board. We had an affidavit from an election officer, property records, driver's license records, and even a google earth photos (they claimed to be staying at a guest house that didn't exist). The case was never investigated, despite the ample evidence we provided.

> The burden of proof is on YOUR goober party. You
> are the ones who are screaming from the rooftops
> that democracy is being threatened. Where's the
> BEEF, Brian? Fact is, THERE ISN'T ANY BEEF. You
> don't have a case to make. Nada, zip, zero.

No, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If they don't investigate, there is no evidence, and no charges. The beef is in the perception of the fraud. That's where the threat to democracy lies.

> LOL! What are you doing about the dangers of
> elephant stampedes? They are just about as common
> around here as voter impersonation fraud. And the
> only reason the general public has any concern at
> all over the matter is that the champions of YOUR
> goober party keep screaming about it for no
> legitimate reason. And you left out a third
> thing -- creating unwarranted hoops and barriers
> to legitimate exercise of the franchise.
> Hindrances that fall disproportionately on those
> likely to vote against you. What a coincidence,
> eh?

If a large percentage of the population felt that elephant stampedes were a problem, there'd be steps taken to reduce their concern.

I have more faith in the average voter than you apparently do. Given how many people have fought long and hard, have risked death or bodily harm, waited in line for hours in the snow in order to exercise the right to vote, I don't think they're going to be dissuaded because they have to show an ID.

People aren't the dribbling idiots you make them out to be.


> Why are the things needed to register to begin
> with not sufficient? Why is there this special
> second round of hoops that certain people need to
> jump through?

Because there's a perception that not requiring a photo ID makes voter fraud easier. Showing an ID when the vast majority of the population already have them is the easiest way to address the concern and deter potential fraud.

All you need to register is to fill out a form. That's it.

> Turnout is hardly the issue, Brian. It affects
> individual voters by making it more difficult for
> them to vote. Especially if they are from a group
> that traditionally votes Democratic. That's
> wanton vote suppression, Brian, and IT STINKS.

Vote suppression = low turnout. So yes, turnout is the issue. You guys can claim all you want that voter ID impacts Democrats more, but that's not true. The biggest group of voters without valid ID are the elderly, and those over 65 are heavily Republican. Romney won them by 10 points in 2012. They don't drive anymore, they don't travel internationally often, and they aren't employed - which means the three most likely forms of valid ID are forms they don't have.

Sure, there are some Republicans who are morons and claim the goal of voter ID is suppression. They are wrong. It's about protecting the integrity of the process and assuring the public that elections aren't being stolen by fraud.

> Then have your Republican yammerers stop pushing
> the idea, for God's sake. It's YOUR people who are
> 100% responsible for this. It is THEY who are
> making up and spreading the lies.

I'm trying. It would help if I got some support for doing the right thing, instead of being crapped on by folks like you for it.

> Are you suggesting that there are no actual
> "dipshits" on this forum, Brian? Seriously? I
> can only speak for myself, but I don't go around
> calling people dipshits unless they have in fact
> shown themselves to be dipshits.

There are plenty. They know who they are. They don't need you remind them of it.

> So still at zero then. How long have "the
> investigations" been ongoing now? How much longer
> do you think they will take? But suppose we go
> with the unlikely and assume that all 17 cases are
> eventually confirmed. What sort of molehill would
> that amount to in your view?

Less than two weeks. I have no idea how long it will take - that's up to the prosecutors. The investigation is on-going, and we've been coordinating the the State Police.

What it amounts to in my view is that we are doing the right thing in Fairfax. We were given evidence, we reviewed it, we determined there needed to be a deeper investigation, we passed that on and folks who broke the law were prosecuted and had their day in court. That's all I want to see happen. If it turns out all 17 of these cases were unfounded, I'll be content because at least we know what happened. Either way, the public benefits.

> No, it's a problem because it creates needless
> waste of time and money over at the county clerk
> or registrar's office. Mickey Mouse does not get
> registered. No one claiming to be Mickey Mouse
> actually shows up and votes on Election Day. But
> resources are diverted into dealing with bogus
> claims and forms. That's the problem.

That too.

> So basically, you and your pals are incompetent?
> Is that the take-away here? You just can't do
> document matching?

I don't handle voter registration. But you're missing the point. Even with the best bureaucrats in the world and ample resources, the problem is simply how our system works. In our federalist system, where each state maintains their own laws and rules about voter registration and voting, creates a patchwork of systems and those don't always integrate seamlessly. I'd like to see a federal voter registration system that ensures this kind of thing doesn't happen, but I don't think that's politically feasible.

It's more than just document matching.

> How very exclusionary. Would never have guessed
> your affiliation from that sort of pabulum.

I suppose that's true. Earl Warren was a Republican, after all.

Gerry is like a wife that has been beat, but will defend her attacker.

Doyousmellit Doyousmellshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Asshole Democrat gets
> Owned! Resorts to Democrat Name Calling HA HA HA
> HA HA Has GOT NOTHING...ACORN = VOTER FRAUD

Wasn't somebody talking about dipshits here recently? Let's see someone make a case against calling you a dipshit. Dumbest fucking poster on the internet.

And the most foul mouth Democrat poster on the internet is YOU! Smile!

You are a POSTER CHILD for the Party!!!

Just Say No...To Voting For Democrats...

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Azada admitted to a USCIS officer
> during
> > an interview for an immigration benefit that
> she
> > had voted in an election."
>
> You took her unsupported word for it, didn't you?
> Would you take her word for anything else?
> Anything at all?


"Records kept by the Lake County clerk's office show Azada voted in nine elections between 2003 and 2009, and twice claimed she was a U.S. citizen on voter-registration applications, Matthews said."

>
> > Different post dummy.
>
> Same mindless stupidity.
>
> > But since you asked:
>
> LOL! You've been scammed, dumbo. Those are all
> VRF cases, That's Voter Registration Fraud, not
> Voter Fraud. Learn the difference. VRF by ACORN
> employees would be akin to shoplifting by Macy's
> associates. It is a crime against the employer,
> in this case for the purpose of receiving wages
> that were not earned. ACORN worked long and hard
> to identify bad apples among its thousands of
> canvassers and turned over the evidence gathered
> against them to authorities. You can go back to
> Square-1 now.


What don't you understand about your own post?


Asshole Report #14-5079 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the
> meantime (and there will be lots of that), what
> you might want to do is go off and count up the
> number of times ACORN was actually CONVICTED of
> voter registration fraud. Let us know when you
> get to one. Talk is fucking cheap, moron. Ask
> the worthless goober, John McCain. Or the hateful
> Mitch McConnell. Facts of course are much harder
> to come by. That's why the right-wing simply
> doesn't bother with them.


Do you want to count the case Nevada where two of ACORN's corporate officials and the organization itself were convicted?


Bonus round:


Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly under name of U.S. citizen, records show

Brendan Kirby

on March 06, 2012 at 3:23 PM, updated March 07, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Venustiano Hernandez-Hernandez ... voted in Alabama elections under assumed name.

MOBILE, Alabama — Federal authorities prosecuted Venustiano Hernandez-Hernandez for Social Security fraud and theft of government funds related to his life under an assumed name in Baldwin County, but they may have been able to add voter fraud, as well.

Records from the Baldwin County Board of Registrars show that Hernandez-Hernandez is registered to vote under the name of Severo Benavidez, the name he used for almost 4 decades after slipping into the United States from his native Mexico in the 1970s.

The Perdido Beach resident pleaded guilty earlier today to federal fraud charges as part of a deal in which aggravated identity theft will be dropped. He also faces possible deportation.

It is unclear whether federal prosecutors might pursue criminal charges against Hernandez-Hernandez related to voter fraud.

Ed Packard, an election official with the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office, said Baldwin County’s voter rolls have included Severo Benavidez since 1984. Packard said the 62-year-old man voted in the 1996 and 2008 general elections, the 2002 primary election and special elections on a constitutional amendment to overhaul Alabama’s tax system in 2003 and to incorporate Perdido Beach as Baldwin County’s 14th municipality in 2009.

Even if Hernandez-Hernandez were not eligible to vote because he is not a citizen, he likely would be removed from the voter rolls by virtue of his conviction. Packard said the U.S. Attorney’s Office regularly sends election officials a list of people convicted of federal crimes. Those convicted of offenses involving “moral turpitude” are stricken from the rolls, he said.

According to court records, Hernandez-Hernandez, who had been using the name Zenaido Hernandez-Hernandez, obtained Benavidez’s birth certificate after a previous deportation in 1974. He used that document to obtain a Social Security number and lived as Severo Benavidez from that point.

His life includes marrying, raising 2 children and working his way up the ranks at Vulcan Materials Co. He also obtained a loan from the Small Business Administration and ran a pair of companies, according to his attorney.

The Social Security Administration denied benefits to the real Severo Benavidez in 2010 after determining he already was receiving disability payments. The recipient turned out to be Hernandez-Hernandez.

According to court records, Benavidez — an American since birth — never has been to or traveled through Alabama.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, those limits exist. That study was done on
> reported cases of fraud. You can't report cases
> that you don't know exist, and as I've said
> before, it's very, very difficult to ferret some
> of this fraud out because of the way the system
> works. But I am not arguing that fraud is endemic.
> Just that we don't have any way of knowing how big
> a problem it is.

Seriously? You're going with claims that vast amounts of fraud MIGHT exist that no one can detect? Have you ever been a door-to-door insurance saleman? A credible person would be ashamed of having made such a remark.

> There's a case in Fairfax County - the first that
> we referred to the Commonwealth's Attorney while I
> was on the Board. We had an affidavit from an
> election officer, property records, driver's
> license records, and even a google earth photos
> (they claimed to be staying at a guest house that
> didn't exist). The case was never investigated,
> despite the ample evidence we provided.

People who stay in fictitious guest houses are never charged with voter fraud. Perhaps your big find was left to rot because it had no actual basis or merit?

> No, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If
> they don't investigate, there is no evidence, and
> no charges. The beef is in the perception of the
> fraud. That's where the threat to democracy lies.

You're really off you game tonight. Your goober party makes claims about how all this widespread voter fraud is corrupting our society and that the plague can only be halted by voter-id laws. And then it turns out that all you have is invisible evidence and complaints about poor prosecutors. Listen up here: If you've got the goods to back up your phony clams, put them on the table. The problem with that of course is that YOU HAVE NO SUCH GOODS. The entire hapless meme is a pure and desperate fiction. There is NOTHING to support it.

> If a large percentage of the population felt that
> elephant stampedes were a problem, there'd be
> steps taken to reduce their concern.

When can we expect FOX News et al. to start trumpeting the dangers posed by elephants. Face up to it: Your goober party is directly fomenting the problem that they then propose to resolve via corrupt political practices. Do you not see a problem here?

> I have more faith in the average voter than you
> apparently do. Given how many people have fought
> long and hard, have risked death or bodily harm,
> waited in line for hours in the snow in order to
> exercise the right to vote, I don't think they're
> going to be dissuaded because they have to show an
> ID.

Well, that's duly sappy and all, but you know full well that voter-id laws create barriers for segments of the electorate that do not much like your goober party, and that your laws were deliberately designed to do exactly that.

> People aren't the dribbling idiots you make them
> out to be.

Many of them are. This very thread contains ample evidence of the fact.

> Because there's a perception that not requiring a
> photo ID makes voter fraud easier.

If so, it's a perception that YOUR OWN REPEATED LIES created -- that for the purpose of gaining undeserved partisan advantage. Yours is the party of wanton and craven fallacy here.

> Showing an ID when the vast majority of the population
> already have them is the easiest way to address the
> concern and deter potential fraud.

Again, this astro-turfed concern is itself a fraud. Voter-id laws do nothing about crooked elections officers tampering with registrations or absentee ballots. That's where the bulk of actual voter fraud arises. The only type of fraud that these voter-id laws can possibly address is voter impersonation, and as every reputable source concludes, that sort of thing simply does not occur in even remotely relevant numbers.

> All you need to register is to fill out a form.
> That's it.

No, it isn't. You are simply lying now. If that were then case, at least thousands of registrations would exist in the name of Mickey Mouse. Want to guess how many actually do? Ask your pals to tell you how many MM's are registered in Fairfax County.

> Vote suppression = low turnout. So yes, turnout is
> the issue.

You are bordering on being labeled a dipshit. Vote suppression is denial of the franchise in whole or in part to specifically targeted groups of voters for purposes of partisan advantage. Little different from keeping blacks from voting in the Jim Crow south. Latter-day Republicans are just as disgraceful in their present-day villainy.

> You guys can claim all you want that
> voter ID impacts Democrats more, but that's not
> true. The biggest group of voters without valid ID
> are the elderly, and those over 65 are heavily
> Republican. Romney won them by 10 points in 2012.

Now you ARE being a dipshit. The targets here are those over 65 who barely survive on SS or disability payments. They are the people who die in summer heat waves. Millionaires over 65 are always welcomed to the polls by your phony goober party. The other folks can't get a pauper's burial. You know all that of course, and still you lie about it. That's pretty scummy, Brian.

> They don't drive anymore, they don't travel
> internationally often, and they aren't employed -
> which means the three most likely forms of valid
> ID are forms they don't have.

LOL! All of that is bullshit. How much have you had to drink this evening?

> Sure, there are some Republicans who are morons
> and claim the goal of voter ID is suppression.
> They are wrong. It's about protecting the
> integrity of the process and assuring the public
> that elections aren't being stolen by fraud.

Same day, same shit. THERE IS NO THREAT, Brian. None. Take the tin-foil hat off and get over it.

> I'm trying. It would help if I got some support
> for doing the right thing, instead of being
> crapped on by folks like you for it.

LOL! All you are doing is attempting to defend venal and patently corrupt political practices. You expect rational people to join you in that? Give me a break!

> There are plenty. They know who they are. They
> don't need you remind them of it.

Those who see evil and do not speak out against it are complicit in that evil. Food for thought there, Brian.

> Less than two weeks. I have no idea how long it
> will take - that's up to the prosecutors. The
> investigation is on-going, and we've been
> coordinating the the State Police.

Round and round and round she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows. Impressive.

> That too.

Actually, that's all.

> I don't handle voter registration. But you're
> missing the point. Even with the best bureaucrats
> in the world and ample resources, the problem is
> simply how our system works. In our federalist
> system, where each state maintains their own laws
> and rules about voter registration and voting,
> creates a patchwork of systems and those don't
> always integrate seamlessly. I'd like to see a
> federal voter registration system that ensures
> this kind of thing doesn't happen, but I don't
> think that's politically feasible.

Voter registration is done at the county level. No one is asking you to keep track of what's going on in Idaho. If your pals can't do simple document checking and matching, maybe they should resign.

> It's more than just document matching.

Do tell. LOL!

> I suppose that's true. Earl Warren was a
> Republican, after all.

So was Jack Abramoff.

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Records kept by the Lake County clerk's office
> show Azada voted in nine elections between 2003
> and 2009, and twice claimed she was a U.S. citizen
> on voter-registration applications, Matthews
> said."

Has she ever had a sanity hearing? Have you? Was Azada ever actually convicted of anything? You've heard of that "presumed innocent" thing, I assume. I myself just find it a little odd that google returns hundreds and hundreds of echo-chamber bulletins about Azada's arrest, and not one single thing about her conviction. Can you help out there?

> What don't you understand about your own post?

What don't you understand about the difference between ACORN and its employees? Are you confused as well about the distinction between Macy's and its associates? You will not find any cases of ACORN being convicted of VRF. You will find many cases of VRF convictions against one-time ACORN employees, typically because ACORN itself initiated those prosecutions, just as Macy's does when its people are caught stealing. Is this really such a difficult thing for you to understand? You'd think even an average intellect would be able to pick it up right away.

> Do you want to count the case Nevada where two of
> ACORN's corporate officials and the organization
> itself were convicted?

LOL! They were not convicted, ACORN did not exist at the time, and the case had nothing to do with VRF. Rather it hung on an arcane interpretation of what constitutes compensation under the uncertain wording of poorly written state law. You'd have known that sort of thing if you'd ever actually followed the case. But of course, you didn't. You just say what you are told to say. Just another worthless goober pinhead.

> Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly
> under name of U.S. citizen, records show

Do you have a freaking point here? Even if they were actually credible, your idiot onesies and twosies would not a national crisis make. And how exactly would this heinous crime of yours have been prevented by a voter-id law? Freaking disoriented numbskull.

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Records kept by the Lake County clerk's office
> > show Azada voted in nine elections between 2003
> > and 2009, and twice claimed she was a U.S.
> citizen
> > on voter-registration applications, Matthews
> > said."
>
> Has she ever had a sanity hearing? Have you? Was
> Azada ever actually convicted of anything? You've
> heard of that "presumed innocent" thing, I assume.
> I myself just find it a little odd that google
> returns hundreds and hundreds of echo-chamber
> bulletins about Azada's arrest, and not one single
> thing about her conviction. Can you help out
> there?

Have you? Judging from your posts you appear to need one.

What don't you understand about "...County clerk's office show Azada voted in nine elections between 2003 and 2009, and twice claimed she was a U.S. citizen
on voter-registration applications"

I guess the DOJ and ICE's web site is part of this 'echo chamber' to you?

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakecounty.htm

The way these things go she may not have even gone to trial yet. Or was deported as Hernandez was. Or disappeared. Whatever the case, her voting records remain as objective, independent evidence.


>
> > What don't you understand about your own post?
>
> What don't you understand about the difference
> between ACORN and its employees? Are you confused
> as well about the distinction between Macy's and
> its associates? You will not find any cases of
> ACORN being convicted of VRF. You will find many
> cases of VRF convictions against one-time ACORN
> employees, typically because ACORN itself
> initiated those prosecutions, just as Macy's does
> when its people are caught stealing. Is this
> really such a difficult thing for you to
> understand? You'd think even an average intellect
> would be able to pick it up right away.
>
> > Do you want to count the case Nevada where two
> of
> > ACORN's corporate officials and the
> organization
> > itself were convicted?
>
> LOL! They were not convicted, ACORN did not exist
> at the time, and the case had nothing to do with
> VRF. Rather it hung on an arcane interpretation
> of what constitutes compensation under the
> uncertain wording of poorly written state law.
> You'd have known that sort of thing if you'd ever
> actually followed the case. But of course, you
> didn't. You just say what you are told to say.
> Just another worthless goober pinhead.


Don't be stupid. You said:

> There is no association with
> ACORN.

There definitely is an association between the two and companies and organizations routinely are held responsible for the actions of their employees. As ACORN was fined for lack of proper oversight in various cases separately from the conviction of its employees. $25K in WA. The prosecutions were not initiated by ACORN. They were initiated by various boards of elections and prosecutors.

The prosecutions and convictions of Busefink, ACORN's Regional Director for Voter Registration, Edwards, ACORN's Las Vegas field director, and ACORN itself were brought by a Democratic State Attorney General and the law itself was upheld by the State Supreme Court. There was no "arcane interpretation." They were paying for voter registrations in direct violation of the law. ACORN was convicted of a felony and received the maximum possible fine. Because it had filed bankruptcy in the interim, it still was convicted. Bankruptcy does not discharge all legal prosecutions and claims.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/judge-fines-acorn-5000-voter-registration-scheme


>
> > Baldwin man convicted of fraud voted regularly
> > under name of U.S. citizen, records show
>
> Do you have a freaking point here? Even if they
> were actually credible, your idiot onesies and
> twosies would not a national crisis make. And how
> exactly would this heinous crime of yours have
> been prevented by a voter-id law? Freaking
> disoriented numbskull.


You claimed that it's all but nonexistent. 'Only 10 cases since 2000.' Yet there are many more examples easily found found with a simple news search. That would seem to indicate that there's something's wrong with your 'scholarly works' on the subject. It's obviously not all that rare. And those are only the relatively smaller number of those who are actually caught and prosecuted. Whether it's of epidemic proportions isn't the matter.

Would you like another?


SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 SAN DIEGO, CA

Previously deported criminal alien pleads guilty to voter fraud, illegal reentry and falsely claiming US citizenship

SAN DIEGO – A previously deported criminal alien pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court to illegally voting in the 2008 presidential election using the name of a U.S. citizen whose identity he assumed more than two decades ago.

Ricardo Lopez-Munguia, 45, of Escondido, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of voter fraud, making a false claim to U.S. citizenship and illegal reentry after deportation. The charges are the result of a probe by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Lopez faces a maximum penalty of 28 years in prison when he is sentenced November 19. Upon completion of his sentence, Lopez will be deported to Mexico.

As part of his guilty plea, Lopez admitted he was convicted of two drug trafficking offenses involving heroin in 1986. In 1987, an immigration judge ordered Lopez deported as an aggravated felon. Lopez admitted he subsequently assumed the identity of a U.S. citizen, which he used to illegally reenter the United States, obtain a Social Security card and a U.S. passport, and to vote.

"Our unique, broad authorities serve to protect the public from widespread exploitation by fraudsters who never seem to know when to quit," said Derek Benner, special agent in charge for HSI San Diego. "Whether we're protecting the integrity of the legal immigration system, rooting out voter fraud or uncovering identity theft, HSI is committed to aggressively investigating fraud that undermines our nation's bedrock institutions."

As part of a collaborative operation in July, officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection took Lopez into custody at the San Ysidro port of entry.

Aging Hollywood pedophile twinks and New York dick Tweeters -- also mostly Democrats.

Get a grip, Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Seriously? You're going with claims that vast
> amounts of fraud MIGHT exist that no one can
> detect? Have you ever been a door-to-door
> insurance saleman? A credible person would be
> ashamed of having made such a remark.

If you're not going to read what I write, I don't know why I'm wasting my time here. I said we don't know how big a problem it is. It may not be a problem at all, as you keep claiming, but we simply don't know. I'm being honest, you're being partisan.

> People who stay in fictitious guest houses are
> never charged with voter fraud. Perhaps your big
> find was left to rot because it had no actual
> basis or merit?

We were never contacted to provide any follow up information and were never told the outcome of the investigation. That leads me to believe there was no investigation. I've already been contacted twice about the 17 investigation and the office was subpoenaed for records. That didn't happen in the prior case.

If there was no basis or merit, I would have liked to have been told that.

> You're really off you game tonight. Your goober
> party makes claims about how all this widespread
> voter fraud is corrupting our society and that the
> plague can only be halted by voter-id laws. And
> then it turns out that all you have is invisible
> evidence and complaints about poor prosecutors.
> Listen up here: If you've got the goods to back
> up your phony clams, put them on the table. The
> problem with that of course is that YOU HAVE NO
> SUCH GOODS. The entire hapless meme is a pure and
> desperate fiction. There is NOTHING to support
> it.

There is also no support for the idea that George Bush planned 9/11 but double digit numbers of people believe it. You guys claim there is no voter fraud. If that's the case, great. If not, voter ID will help stop it. Regardless, voter ID does not cause the widespread voter suppression you guys claim without evidence. You can't very well claim Republicans are irrational about this issue while being irrational about the requested remedy.

> When can we expect FOX News et al. to start
> trumpeting the dangers posed by elephants. Face
> up to it: Your goober party is directly fomenting
> the problem that they then propose to resolve via
> corrupt political practices. Do you not see a
> problem here?

I see what happens all the time in politics happening here. One side identifies a problem, the other side says that's not really a problem, the other side says you just don't want to fix it because you think it benefits you, etc. Gun control, nutritional rules in schools, corporate welfare, money in politics, climate change - you can throw a bunch of these out there that happen on both sides of the aisle.

Voter ID is not a corrupt political practice. It's common sense.

> Well, that's duly sappy and all, but you know full
> well that voter-id laws create barriers for
> segments of the electorate that do not much like
> your goober party, and that your laws were
> deliberately designed to do exactly that.

No, they don't. The barriers are minimal and I already pointed out that the elderly are most affected and most likely to vote Republican.

> If so, it's a perception that YOUR OWN REPEATED
> LIES created -- that for the purpose of gaining
> undeserved partisan advantage. Yours is the party
> of wanton and craven fallacy here.

I can't control what some idiots say, any more than you can control what the idiots on your side of the aisle say. Both parties have their idiots.

> Again, this astro-turfed concern is itself a
> fraud. Voter-id laws do nothing about crooked
> elections officers tampering with registrations or
> absentee ballots. That's where the bulk of actual
> voter fraud arises. The only type of fraud that
> these voter-id laws can possibly address is voter
> impersonation, and as every reputable source
> concludes, that sort of thing simply does not
> occur in even remotely relevant numbers.

We already have laws in place to address and prevent crooked election officers tampering - that's why we have a balance between parties of election officers, and why both parties and candidates can have observers monitoring the entire process.

> No, it isn't. You are simply lying now. If that
> were then case, at least thousands of
> registrations would exist in the name of Mickey
> Mouse. Want to guess how many actually do? Ask
> your pals to tell you how many MM's are registered
> in Fairfax County.

No, I am being honest. Go look at the form. When you turn that form in, it doesn't require that you prove your identity, that you prove your citizenship or that you show ID. You are just filling out the form. The only time you need to send in a copy of ID is if you are voting for the first time in a federal election, otherwise you just send the form in.

Mickey Mouse doesn't have a social security number, so that's why he's not registered. And it's not like we don't review them, either.

> You are bordering on being labeled a dipshit.
> Vote suppression is denial of the franchise in
> whole or in part to specifically targeted groups
> of voters for purposes of partisan advantage.
> Little different from keeping blacks from voting
> in the Jim Crow south. Latter-day Republicans are
> just as disgraceful in their present-day villainy.

And so are you with this pointless quibbling. How does voter suppression manifest itself? Low turnout. Do you think, given the demographics of Fairfax County in 2014, that a spike in the number of minorities not voting wouldn't be obvious in the turnout numbers? Of course it would. How else can you determine if voter suppression is happening? Without a metric, we have no way of knowing.

Voter ID is not remotely similar to the Jim Crow laws passed by the Democratic machine, and the only Republicans who want to limit voter turnout are the aforementioned idiots. I am not one of them.

> Now you ARE being a dipshit. The targets here are
> those over 65 who barely survive on SS or
> disability payments. They are the people who die
> in summer heat waves. Millionaires over 65 are
> always welcomed to the polls by your phony goober
> party. The other folks can't get a pauper's
> burial. You know all that of course, and still
> you lie about it. That's pretty scummy, Brian.

What's pretty scummy is that you can't admit when you're wrong. You have zero evidence that every retired person over the age of 65 who relies on social security is a Democrat, and the numbers don't match the claim. And millionaires over 65 don't exclusively vote Republican either. Ask Warren Buffett.

> Same day, same shit. THERE IS NO THREAT, Brian.
> None. Take the tin-foil hat off and get over it.

As I have said multiple times, the perception is the greater threat. We pass laws to prevent remote possibilities that aren't realistic threats all the time. Been on an airplane lately?

> LOL! All you are doing is attempting to defend
> and patently corrupt political practices.
> You expect rational people to join you in that?
> Give me a break!

You must have a very broad definition of corrupt. There is nothing corrupt about voter ID. It's common sense. You can't pick up your dry cleaning or cash a check without showing ID, but showing ID to vote is too onerous? Come on.

> Those who see evil and do not speak out against it
> are complicit in that evil. Food for thought
> there, Brian.

You can do that without having to be an ass about it.

> Voter registration is done at the county level.
> No one is asking you to keep track of what's going
> on in Idaho. If your pals can't do simple
> document checking and matching, maybe they should
> resign.

It's also done at the state level, and the database we use is a state run central database. We review records at the state level from DMV, from the Department of Justice and a variety of other sources to keep the lists up to date. We belong to clearinghouses of state registration data (not every state does) that help keep our lists clean, but a lot of what happens is determined by what the voter does. You move to Idaho and don't tell them you were registered in Virginia, you don't have a driver's license or DMV screws up and we have no way of knowing you aren't still in Virginia. It takes a minimum of four years to remove anybody from the rolls. We run a tight ship, but in a county with a large, highly mobile population, things get missed.

But hey - you want a job, let me know. We can always use more election officers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 09:36AM by BrianSchoeneman.

So Brian, are you saying that we still have an issue with potential voter fraud with illegal aliens trying to vote and may be able to by falsing forms?

I see so much defensive posturing in this thread,
so much invective and reaction and denial and hiding.

Is there not ONE Democrat who will stand up and admit the obvious ??

Brian Moran, where are you?

4nd3L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Brian, are you saying that we still have an
> issue with potential voter fraud with illegal
> aliens trying to vote and may be able to by
> falsing forms?

There is always going to be this potential unless we verify citizenship at registration. There is no easy way to do that right now, so this comes down to a question of whether the harm is significant enough to allocate the resources needed to stop it. We do review information from DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, but that doesn't capture all non-citizens.

We don't have enough evidence that there are large enough numbers of non-citizens voting to address this issue. Voter ID should help to a certain extent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 08:11PM by BrianSchoeneman.

I think I read that some groups in Ohio were putting up billboards advising that voting if you are not a citizen is illegal--a felony? Some group sued and they were not allowed to put up the billboards--it was "voter intimidation"! Of course, the only people intimidated would have been those voting illegally........

it is illegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The findings did not say that many people had
> double voted. It said that 17 appeared to have
> voted in both places. That is the illegal part.
>
>
> I know when I moved to Virginia-many years ago- I
> asked how it worked, since I was registered in
> another state. I got a vague answer. Maybe I am
> still registered there.
>
> However, 17 double votes is too many. Remember,
> this just applies to FFX county and Maryland.
> Wonder how many are double registered and double
> voted from Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William,
> etc?

Something to consider, since this is an ongoing investigation, is that those "17 who have appeared to have double voted" may not have. Just look at the TSA No-Fly list, there are plenty of identical names and misidentified individuals. Lots of names are the same and there are plenty of errors in the records.

As to whether the voters are Democrat or Republican or whatever, Virginia does not require anyone to state their party preference. How can anyone say these are democrats or republicans or whatever? They can't, this is pure propaganda that the masses soak up.

suggest you read what Brian wrote about the 17. Hate to burst your bubble about "no voter fraud".

I know someone who for at least a decade has voted in both RI and MA. Liberal Democrat, of course. I am sure there are many more like her.

when i voted for president to get obama out (you know, how many trillion later)

it seemed their were ALLOT of voters there that didn't belong. and they all were jostling to avoid a certain voting machine - which i thought was odd

I will say this now and said this before. You're one of the only republicans I have voted for and would vote for again, you're a good. guy just a questions will Bob Mcdonnell name be removed by the November election?

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get a grip, Brian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Seriously? You're going with claims that vast
> > amounts of fraud MIGHT exist that no one can
> > detect? Have you ever been a door-to-door
> > insurance saleman? A credible person would be
> > ashamed of having made such a remark.
>
> If you're not going to read what I write, I don't
> know why I'm wasting my time here. I said we don't
> know how big a problem it is. It may not be a
> problem at all, as you keep claiming, but we
> simply don't know. I'm being honest, you're being
> partisan.
>
> > People who stay in fictitious guest houses are
> > never charged with voter fraud. Perhaps your
> big
> > find was left to rot because it had no actual
> > basis or merit?
>
> We were never contacted to provide any follow up
> information and were never told the outcome of the
> investigation. That leads me to believe there was
> no investigation. I've already been contacted
> twice about the 17 investigation and the office
> was subpoenaed for records. That didn't happen in
> the prior case.
>
> If there was no basis or merit, I would have liked
> to have been told that.
>
> > You're really off you game tonight. Your
> goober
> > party makes claims about how all this
> widespread
> > voter fraud is corrupting our society and that
> the
> > plague can only be halted by voter-id laws.
> And
> > then it turns out that all you have is
> invisible
> > evidence and complaints about poor prosecutors.
>
> > Listen up here: If you've got the goods to
> back
> > up your phony clams, put them on the table.
> The
> > problem with that of course is that YOU HAVE NO
> > SUCH GOODS. The entire hapless meme is a pure
> and
> > desperate fiction. There is NOTHING to support
> > it.
>
> There is also no support for the idea that George
> Bush planned 9/11 but double digit numbers of
> people believe it. You guys claim there is no
> voter fraud. If that's the case, great. If not,
> voter ID will help stop it. Regardless, voter ID
> does not cause the widespread voter suppression
> you guys claim without evidence. You can't very
> well claim Republicans are irrational about this
> issue while being irrational about the requested
> remedy.
>
> > When can we expect FOX News et al. to start
> > trumpeting the dangers posed by elephants.
> Face
> > up to it: Your goober party is directly
> fomenting
> > the problem that they then propose to resolve
> via
> > corrupt political practices. Do you not see a
> > problem here?
>
> I see what happens all the time in politics
> happening here. One side identifies a problem, the
> other side says that's not really a problem, the
> other side says you just don't want to fix it
> because you think it benefits you, etc. Gun
> control, nutritional rules in schools, corporate
> welfare, money in politics, climate change - you
> can throw a bunch of these out there that happen
> on both sides of the aisle.
>
> Voter ID is not a corrupt political practice. It's
> common sense.
>
> > Well, that's duly sappy and all, but you know
> full
> > well that voter-id laws create barriers for
> > segments of the electorate that do not much
> like
> > your goober party, and that your laws were
> > deliberately designed to do exactly that.
>
> No, they don't. The barriers are minimal and I
> already pointed out that the elderly are most
> affected and most likely to vote Republican.
>
> > If so, it's a perception that YOUR OWN REPEATED
> > LIES created -- that for the purpose of gaining
> > undeserved partisan advantage. Yours is the
> party
> > of wanton and craven fallacy here.
>
> I can't control what some idiots say, any more
> than you can control what the idiots on your side
> of the aisle say. Both parties have their idiots.
>
>
> > Again, this astro-turfed concern is itself a
> > fraud. Voter-id laws do nothing about crooked
> > elections officers tampering with registrations
> or
> > absentee ballots. That's where the bulk of
> actual
> > voter fraud arises. The only type of fraud
> that
> > these voter-id laws can possibly address is
> voter
> > impersonation, and as every reputable source
> > concludes, that sort of thing simply does not
> > occur in even remotely relevant numbers.
>
> We already have laws in place to address and
> prevent crooked election officers tampering -
> that's why we have a balance between parties of
> election officers, and why both parties and
> candidates can have observers monitoring the
> entire process.
>
> > No, it isn't. You are simply lying now. If
> that
> > were then case, at least thousands of
> > registrations would exist in the name of Mickey
> > Mouse. Want to guess how many actually do?
> Ask
> > your pals to tell you how many MM's are
> registered
> > in Fairfax County.
>
> No, I am being honest. Go look at the form. When
> you turn that form in, it doesn't require that you
> prove your identity, that you prove your
> citizenship or that you show ID. You are just
> filling out the form. The only time you need to
> send in a copy of ID is if you are voting for the
> first time in a federal election, otherwise you
> just send the form in.
>
> Mickey Mouse doesn't have a social security
> number, so that's why he's not registered. And
> it's not like we don't review them, either.
>
> > You are bordering on being labeled a dipshit.
> > Vote suppression is denial of the franchise in
> > whole or in part to specifically targeted
> groups
> > of voters for purposes of partisan advantage.
> > Little different from keeping blacks from
> voting
> > in the Jim Crow south. Latter-day Republicans
> are
> > just as disgraceful in their present-day
> villainy.
>
> And so are you with this pointless quibbling. How
> does voter suppression manifest itself? Low
> turnout. Do you think, given the demographics of
> Fairfax County in 2014, that a spike in the number
> of minorities not voting wouldn't be obvious in
> the turnout numbers? Of course it would. How else
> can you determine if voter suppression is
> happening? Without a metric, we have no way of
> knowing.
>
> Voter ID is not remotely similar to the Jim Crow
> laws passed by the Democratic machine, and the
> only Republicans who want to limit voter turnout
> are the aforementioned idiots. I am not one of
> them.
>
> > Now you ARE being a dipshit. The targets here
> are
> > those over 65 who barely survive on SS or
> > disability payments. They are the people who
> die
> > in summer heat waves. Millionaires over 65 are
> > always welcomed to the polls by your phony
> goober
> > party. The other folks can't get a pauper's
> > burial. You know all that of course, and still
> > you lie about it. That's pretty scummy, Brian.
>
> What's pretty scummy is that you can't admit when
> you're wrong. You have zero evidence that every
> retired person over the age of 65 who relies on
> social security is a Democrat, and the numbers
> don't match the claim. And millionaires over 65
> don't exclusively vote Republican either. Ask
> Warren Buffett.
>
> > Same day, same shit. THERE IS NO THREAT, Brian.
>
> > None. Take the tin-foil hat off and get over
> it.
>
> As I have said multiple times, the perception is
> the greater threat. We pass laws to prevent remote
> possibilities that aren't realistic threats all
> the time. Been on an airplane lately?
>
> > LOL! All you are doing is attempting to defend
> > and patently corrupt political practices.
> > You expect rational people to join you in that?
>
> > Give me a break!
>
> You must have a very broad definition of corrupt.
> There is nothing corrupt about voter ID. It's
> common sense. You can't pick up your dry cleaning
> or cash a check without showing ID, but showing ID
> to vote is too onerous? Come on.
>
> > Those who see evil and do not speak out against
> it
> > are complicit in that evil. Food for thought
> > there, Brian.
>
> You can do that without having to be an ass about
> it.
>
> > Voter registration is done at the county level.
>
> > No one is asking you to keep track of what's
> going
> > on in Idaho. If your pals can't do simple
> > document checking and matching, maybe they
> should
> > resign.
>
> It's also done at the state level, and the
> database we use is a state run central database.
> We review records at the state level from DMV,
> from the Department of Justice and a variety of
> other sources to keep the lists up to date. We
> belong to clearinghouses of state registration
> data (not every state does) that help keep our
> lists clean, but a lot of what happens is
> determined by what the voter does. You move to
> Idaho and don't tell them you were registered in
> Virginia, you don't have a driver's license or DMV
> screws up and we have no way of knowing you aren't
> still in Virginia. It takes a minimum of four
> years to remove anybody from the rolls. We run a
> tight ship, but in a county with a large, highly
> mobile population, things get missed.
>
> But hey - you want a job, let me know. We can
> always use more election officers.

Thanks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will say this now and said this before. You're
> one of the only republicans I have voted for and
> would vote for again, you're a good. guy just a
> questions will Bob Mcdonnell name be removed by
> the November election?

I appreciate the support.

We remove convicted felons from the rolls on a monthly basis, so Bob should be removed before November, yes.

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The way these things go she may not have even gone
> to trial yet. Or was deported as Hernandez was.
> Or disappeared. Whatever the case, her voting
> records remain as objective, independent
> evidence.

It appears you have no explanation at all then for why there would be hundreds upon hundreds of reports of an arrest and none at all of a conviction. Nor does it seem that you are at all bothered by that. Clue: This is how goobers get snookered by propagandists.

> There definitely is an association between the two
> and companies and organizations routinely are held
> responsible for the actions of their employees.

No, clown boy, they most definitely are not. Your knowledge of the law would have Macy's executives jailed because some clerk was caught walking out with a shirt or two. Employee and employer -- perp and victim. It's kind of basic to get that sort of thing straightened out, but you are too much of a partisan coward to have gotten even close to it.

> The prosecutions and convictions of Busefink,
> ACORN's Regional Director for Voter Registration,
> Edwards, ACORN's Las Vegas field director, and
> ACORN itself were brought by a Democratic State
> Attorney General and the law itself was upheld by
> the State Supreme Court.

Dumb, just dumb. No one was convicted. The state Supreme Court upheld the legislature's power to create a statute. It did not rule on how good a job the legislature had done. As was stated earlier, it is painfully obvious that you did not actually follow this case. You are simply parroting from worthless right-wing propaganda sites. Personally, I spit on those.

> You claimed that it's all but nonexistent. 'Only
> 10 cases since 2000.'

I referred to research far more thorough and detailed than anything your simpleton handlers have ever imagined. It sifted through thousands of records provided by election officials from all fifty states in response to requests for data concerning all suspected cases of fraudulent voting activity since 2000. Number of actual cases of voter impersonation fraud confirmed? Ten. But as dense as you have shown yourself to be, let me point out that the point here is not that there were ten such cases as opposed to either nine or eleven. The point is that the ONLY type of voter fraud that voter-ID laws actually have any impact on is so rare as to be completely trivial and well beyond the pale of any sort of electoral relevance.

Dont try to undermine and negate my vote you basturd with your Bullshit. Get a Voter ID or Fuck You and all thge other scammers and double triple voting fucks

This week Colorado issued hundreds of IDs to illegals. They were supposed to be just for driving, but they fucked up and gave them the first-class full-citizen driver+voter+services ID/licenses. They will not be going out and recovering them. Instead, they are re-issuing the proper (!) drivers-license-only IDs to the illegals. This way, they can get their illegal-immigrant benefits with the new card, and use the mistake card for voting and stuff. Oh! They are also sending them a debit gift card as an apology!

WTF?!?

Thousands of drivers licenses were issued to illegal immigrants so that they can drive and VOTE, out of the Bailey's Crossroads (defunct) and Fair Oaks DMVs. If I remember correctly, they figured about 2,500 out of the old Bailey's location. It's a latino sports bar now, LOL!

Or was it 25,000? Anyone remember?

Hope you like Hillary!

The whole financial system collapsed under their watch and they left the country in two wars and massive debt.

And they swear the only reason they've lost is vote fraud. It makes no sense to them. Its because they have none. They wouldn't have the political leanings they have if they had sense.

Virginia DMV official, wife held for selling valid driver's licenses
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | July 13, 2005 | Jerry Seper
Posted on July 13, 2005 at 8:35:28 AM EDT by bookworm100

A Virginia man who worked as a manager at a Department of Motor Vehicles office at Springfield Mall and his wife, a former DMV clerk, were arrested yesterday by federal agents on charges of selling valid driver's licenses for as much as $3,500 each -- mostly to illegal aliens. U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty said Francisco J. Martinez, 57, and his wife, Miriam, 56, both of Stafford, Va., have been charged with conspiracy to commit identification fraud and conspiracy to produce Virginia driver's licenses by fraud, both felonies.

=============================================================

_The Arlington Journal_ [April 5-7 Weekend Edition]. Article by Geoffrey Brown.

Teresa Stover's life turned upside down after a woman walked into the Arlington County Department of Motor Vehicles office Dec. 14 and, using a fake identification card, got a duplicate driver's license with Stover's name on it. The woman promptly got charge accounts in Stover's name, according to police. Stover now has to convince creditors she isn't the woman who went on a $30,000 shopping spree.

Stover, 25, who now lives in Philadelphia, said she has spent weeks trying to clear her name. She charges the DMV gave the woman a license to steal. "Asfar as I'm concerned, DMV hung me. They helped her out tremendously." "It's far too easy to get a driver's license," Stover said. Stover is not the firstto claim that DMV issues licences without properly checking identification.

Her story follows reports from DMV employees across Northern Virginia that they have given licenses to people with little proof of identification because managers have told them to bend the rules rather than risk getting complaints from noisy citizens.

People from as far away as New York and New Jersey have trekked to Northern Virginia DMV offices to get licenses because it is easier to get a license herethan in other states, according to court documents and reports from state andfederal officials. [...] [The woman] apparently got Stover's Social Security number and other information from a bank - but how that happened Stover didn't know. [She] got a copy of Stover's driving record, and got her birthdate and
home address from a DMV employee, Stover was told. [The woman] has brown eyes and black hair, while Stover is blond and blue-eyed, and that is recorded in a DMV computer. [...]

The article goes on to discuss in general the problem of fraudulent driver's licenses:

A 2 and a half year federal investigation of corruption and fraud at theBaileys Crossroads DMV branch has revealed that perhaps thousands of illegalaliens have gotten driver's licences from corrupt DMV employees, and that DMV has done little in 2 and a half years to track the bad licenses.

A law enforcement official said the amounts employees took were small - as little as $10 for a license. [...]

[Article refers to the Bailey's Crossroads / Skyline DMV location]

================================================================

DMV Crowding, Security Woes Cited in Va. License Fraud Scheme

The Washington Post
April 25, 1991 | Robert F. Howe | Copyright

A massive fraud scheme to issue hundreds of illegal driver's licenses from the Baileys Crossroads motor vehicle office resulted in part from inadequate security and crowding, according to Virginia transportation officials.

Transportation Secretary John G. Milliken, calling for a closer review of immigrant identification documents and a greater reliance on the mail for routine Department of Motor Vehicle transactions, said the fraud has highlighted the dangers of the confusion that plagues many of the state's busy DMV branches.

"One of the reasons we get into that kind of problem is that those offices are crowded, chaotic. Those employees are pressed with lots of people demanding their attention at the same time," said Milliken, adding that the strain is worsened by "the increasingly diverse pool" of driver's license applicants. …

Summary: We are irretrievably fucked.

The way I see it, the more they are focused on rigging elections, the less focused the Republicans are on winning them.

They need to do a lot more than disenfranchise some voters. That will only solidify the inevitable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2014 01:05AM by Gerrymanderer2.

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The way these things go she may not have even
> gone
> > to trial yet. Or was deported as Hernandez was.
>
> > Or disappeared. Whatever the case, her voting
> > records remain as objective, independent
> > evidence.
>
> It appears you have no explanation at all then for
> why there would be hundreds upon hundreds of
> reports of an arrest and none at all of a
> conviction. Nor does it seem that you are at all
> bothered by that. Clue: This is how goobers get
> snookered by propagandists.


Yeah, "propagandists" like Obama's DOJ under Holder which issues bogus press releases regarding arrests to feed the "right wing echo chamber." lol


>
> > There definitely is an association between the
> two
> > and companies and organizations routinely are
> held
> > responsible for the actions of their employees.
>
>
> No, clown boy, they most definitely are not. Your
> knowledge of the law would have Macy's executives
> jailed because some clerk was caught walking out
> with a shirt or two. Employee and employer --
> perp and victim. It's kind of basic to get that
> sort of thing straightened out, but you are too
> much of a partisan coward to have gotten even
> close to it.
>

That's the problem with simple-minded analogies which don't quite match the circumstances. See below.


> > The prosecutions and convictions of Busefink,
> > ACORN's Regional Director for Voter
> Registration,
> > Edwards, ACORN's Las Vegas field director, and
> > ACORN itself were brought by a Democratic State
> > Attorney General and the law itself was upheld
> by
> > the State Supreme Court.
>
> Dumb, just dumb. No one was convicted. The state
> Supreme Court upheld the legislature's power to
> create a statute. It did not rule on how good a
> job the legislature had done. As was stated
> earlier, it is painfully obvious that you did not
> actually follow this case. You are simply
> parroting from worthless right-wing propaganda
> sites. Personally, I spit on those.
>

Another day, still wrong.

Both Busefink and Edwards were convicted and sentenced for their roles as ACORN employees in the registration compensation scheme. As was, later, ACORN itself which entered a guilty plea to one felony count (plead down from 12), was convicted, and was fined.

The reason for the State Supreme Court to be involved at all was because of Busefink's appeal which, obviously, there would have been no need for had she not been convicted. The court specifically upheld her conviction.

Quote

Busefink v. State

In 2008, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) hired voter registration canvassers in Las Vegas. Under an incentive program, ACORN paid canvassers $5 a bonus if the canvasser returned twenty-one or more voter registration applications. The State subsequently charged ACORN and the supervisor of ACORN's field director for Nevada with several counts of violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 293.805, which prohibits providing compensation to voter registration canvassers based upon the total number of voters a canvasser registers. The supervisor entered an Alford plea to two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters, and was adjudged guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 293.805 triggers a less exacting standard of review than strict scrutiny; (2) the State demonstrated an interest sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation imposed on canvassing activities, and therefore, section 293.805 does not violate the First Amendment; and (3) section 293.805 is not unconstitutionally vague.

http://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2012/128-nev-adv-op-no-49.html

> > You claimed that it's all but nonexistent.
> 'Only
> > 10 cases since 2000.'
>
> I referred to research far more thorough and
> detailed than anything your simpleton handlers
> have ever imagined. It sifted through thousands
> of records provided by election officials from all
> fifty states in response to requests for data
> concerning all suspected cases of fraudulent
> voting activity since 2000. Number of actual
> cases of voter impersonation fraud confirmed?
> Ten. But as dense as you have shown yourself to
> be, let me point out that the point here is not
> that there were ten such cases as opposed to
> either nine or eleven. The point is that the ONLY
> type of voter fraud that voter-ID laws actually
> have any impact on is so rare as to be completely
> trivial and well beyond the pale of any sort of
> electoral relevance.

Unlike you, I have no "handlers" and, no, it didn't. You're misrepresenting your own sources now.

But I agree to some extent that it's not something that happens in huge numbers. At the same time, it's also not nearly as rare to the point of being nonexistent as some like you try to play it. That's not even considering absentee ballots, double voting, polling/poll worker abuses, and various other fraud and abuse. On both sides.

I heard that Obama is really an alien from another planet too...
Attachments:

MohammedThePig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't dispute voter fraud happens. There will
> > always be criminals of some sort everywhere.
> What
> > I do dispute that it makes a significant
> > difference...in 2012 election, suspected voter
> > fraud instances made up something like one
> hundred
> > thousandth of a percentage point.
> >
> > For instance, in this thread, 17 suspected
> > instances of people voting illegally in Fairfax
> > County, with 700,000 registered voters.
> >
> > That comes to 0.0000242% of the voting
> > electorate.
> >
> > Does it exist? Probably. Is it statistically
> > significant? Hardly.
>
> If it's so insignificant why do Dems shit their
> pants over voter ID?


Because voter ID laws suppress low income voters and those afraid of authority

MohammedThePig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If it's so insignificant why do Dems shit their
> pants over voter ID?


Easily the stupidest comment in this thread, and possibly on the entire site. Please try to think for a minute before you write.

The illegal aliens that I'm aware of do everything they can to fly under the radar. When you're biggest concern is being deported, you're not interested in making a grand political statement. I don't think that they're going to be voting in droves.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're not going to read what I write, I don't
> know why I'm wasting my time here. I said we don't
> know how big a problem it is. It may not be a
> problem at all, as you keep claiming, but we
> simply don't know. I'm being honest, you're being
> partisan.

We don't know how many elephants are massing in the woods preparing to attack us either. It's goober-speak, Brian, and you've been around politics long enough to know that full well. The legitimate research into voter fraud all shows that it simply doesn't exist. It's a non-problem. Raising Cain over it anyway is beyond dishonest. So far beyond it that more serious flaws and shortcomings have to come up for consideration.

> We were never contacted to provide any follow up
> information and were never told the outcome of the
> investigation.

So just more back-and-forth paper-pushing. Nothing on the table. Same as it ever was. Yet you want to trumpet this as evidence of some sort.

> There is also no support for the idea that George
> Bush planned 9/11 but double digit numbers of
> people believe it.

Pointless. Republicans -- at the very highest levels -- have for years touted the supposed democracy-destroying dangers of voter fraud. Do you deny that? There is actually no such danger at all. None. Do you deny that? If "No" and "No", how do you rationalize the behavior we have seen?

> You guys claim there is no voter fraud.

Not sure who the "guys" are, but I am pretty clearly stating on the basis of copious and reliable evidence that voter fraud is so rare as to be completely insignificant. Especially the only type of fraud that is likely to be affected by voter-id laws.

> If that's the case, great. If not, voter ID will help stop it.

The "If not" part is just more elephant-talk. Otherwise, how will it help? Voter-impersonation is the rarest form of vote fraud. How do voter-id laws go to detering crooked election officials from manipulating and tampering with absentee ballots? The one-and-only answer is: They don't. They have no effect at all in that regard. Voter-id laws have little effect on an insignifcant problem. The motives and intentions of these laws of course lie somewhere else entirely.

> Regardless, voter ID does not cause the widespread
> voter suppression you guys claim without evidence.

All the credible evidence that exists is held by voter-id opponents. And "widespread" is of course not a valid metric. It's illegal to murder even one person. Improper constraint of voting rights is no different. "We didn't really screw over all that many people" is not a legitimate defense or excuse. You should resign your position. In disgrace. If you ever did, you no longer meet the minimum qualifications for public service.

> Voter ID is not a corrupt political practice.

Vote suppression is, and there is NO OTHER REASON AT ALL for voter-id laws.

> It's common sense.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. THAT might qualify as common sense. But you are railing here in full 180-degree opposition to that notion. You don't make common sense here. You don't make any sort of sense at all. It's all naked partisan BS arising from demographic paranoia.

> No, they don't. The barriers are minimal and I
> already pointed out that the elderly are most
> affected and most likely to vote Republican.

No, you lied through your teeth before, and you are doing it again now. This is what worthless pussies do. The barriers created are significant enough to have actual impact in reducing the numbers of individuals within the targeted and disfavored classes who ultimately manage to vote. The elderly who are poor, disabled, or minority DO NOT VOTE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN. Only a total fathead could make such a statement. Or perhaps a dipshit.

> I can't control what some idiots say, any more
> than you can control what the idiots on your side
> of the aisle say. Both parties have their idiots.

That sort of mealy-mouthed babble got Nazis hanged at Nuremberg. Meanwhile, you are such an inveterate and ingrained partisan hack that you assume everyone must be. That's pitiful. There ARE actual non-partisans and independents in the world. Try playing a road game in their ballpark for a change.

> We already have laws in place to address and
> prevent crooked election officers tampering -
> that's why we have a balance between parties of
> election officers, and why both parties and
> candidates can have observers monitoring the
> entire process.

Does not exactly comport well with the established fact that it is these well-controlled officers of yours who commit nearly ALL of the vote fraud that actually occurs in this country. Going after them of course would not oprovide any particular partisan advantage. Keeping minorities and the urban and rural poor away from the polls WOULD of course provide such an advantage. That's why you have deliberately targeted those groups in your disgraceful vote suppression schemes.

> No, I am being honest. Go look at the form. When
> you turn that form in, it doesn't require that you
> prove your identity, that you prove your
> citizenship or that you show ID. You are just
> filling out the form. The only time you need to
> send in a copy of ID is if you are voting for the
> first time in a federal election, otherwise you
> just send the form in.

Give it up, Dopey. Or does it say Bashful on your voter card? You are not being honest at all. You are prevaricating left and right in a clumsy and transparent attempt to dance away from further self-incrimination.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mickey Mouse doesn't have a social security
> number, so that's why he's not registered. And
> it's not like we don't review them, either.

Ah, so it's not just a matter of sending in a form after all. See what I mean about clumsy? Your pals actually do try to do document-matching but they really aren't very good at it. Is that the new story you have for us today?

> And so are you with this pointless quibbling. How
> does voter suppression manifest itself? Low
> turnout.

I'm a little tired of that sloppy-ass ingenue bullshit, Brian. Suppression manifests itself in vastly lower individual rates of voting among those in the targeted classes. They plummet all the way from 100% (Yes, I was able to vote today) to 0% (No, I was not able to vote today), and it all happens because of YOU. Your one and only intention here is to keep as many high-likelihood Dem voters as you can away from the polls. There are no excuses for it. There are no cover-ups. What you are defending is the deliberate use of carefully crafted blockades and barriers to create classes of second-tier citizens -- citizens who will NOT be given an equal opportunity to vote. Again, that is Jim Crow disgraceful, and so are all those who either actively or passively promote it. That would of course include you.

> Voter ID is not remotely similar to the Jim Crow
> laws passed by the Democratic machine...

Ah, the good old days when the racists were Democrats and the progressives were Republicans. The Party of Lincoln, they called it. As if Honest Abe would not be vilified as an over-reaching statist by Republicans of today. And things have indeed turned by 180 degrees since back then, haven't they. The racists, nativists, bigots, and fundie nutcases call themselves Republicans now. Or worse, Libertarians. While progressives from every vantage point still seek to oppose and beat back these social vermin. Otherwise, closing your eyes to a problem will not make it go away. Voter-id laws ARE Jim Crow laws -- just watered down and rebranded to better suit modern-day sensibilities. You can't just keep all blacks from the polls any more. But with enough spin, repetition, and the resultant complicity of enough stupid people, you can keep enough likely Dem voters away from the polls to influence the outcomes of elections, and THAT'S the one and only goal that Republicans actually have in all this.

> ...and the only Republicans who want to limit voter
> turnout are the aforementioned idiots.

Yes, I think I did mention the idiots McCain and McConnell earlier. And where do Republicans tend to stand on the Voting Rights Act these days? They not so long ago supported it unanimously. But once again, times have changed. These days, fear and hatred are Republican mainstays and watchwords. We need to defend the sanctity of our democracy after all. We cannot let it fall into the hands non-Christians, people of color, the young or the old, and certainly not the foreign-born. These people are not worthy of the franchise and must be kept from it insofar as is possible. These people often vote Democratic, after all.

> I am not one of them.

LOL! You have quite a long way to go yet before convincing me of that.

> What's pretty scummy is that you can't admit when
> you're wrong.

Certainly I could, but as you continue to point out, I haven't been wrong yet.

> You have zero evidence that every retired person
> over the age of 65 who relies on social security
> is a Democrat, and the numbers don't match the claim.

Bit of a strawman there. That's more than just a bit of bad form. How would you say the majorities of urban and rural poor, minorities, and the elderly who get by day-to-day thanks only to Social Security tend to vote? You don't actually have to answer that -- Romney himself stood up and told us flat out that these people would never vote for him. Might have been the truest thing he said during that gruesome campaign. But maybe you could speak instead to the situation of another important class that is targeted by voter-ID laws -- out-of-state and out-of-town college students. In your long experience, is that a group that has trended more Republican or more Democratic in its electoral tendencies? If the latter, maybe that should suggest a little something.

> And millionaires over 65 don't exclusively vote Republican either.
> Ask Warren Buffett.

You are arguing with yourself. Needlessly. And at an eighth-grade level.

> As I have said multiple times, the perception is
> the greater threat.

Then why has your goober party gone to such lengths to create that very perception? Do you all simply hate America?

> We pass laws to prevent remote possibilities that aren't
> realistic threats all the time. Been on an airplane lately?

Sounds like a flat-out concession. There is no actual fraud problem to address. But you want to pass some wolf-in-sheep's-clothing laws anyway. Hmmm.

> You can't pick up your dry cleaning or cash a check
> without showing ID..

LOL! Yes, I can and do. Take yesterday morning, for example. Where do you live anyway?

> It's also done at the state level, and the
> database we use is a state run central database.
> We review records at the state level from DMV,
> from the Department of Justice and a variety of
> other sources to keep the lists up to date. We
> belong to clearinghouses of state registration
> data (not every state does) that help keep our
> lists clean, but a lot of what happens is
> determined by what the voter does. You move to
> Idaho and don't tell them you were registered in
> Virginia, you don't have a driver's license or DMV
> screws up and we have no way of knowing you aren't
> still in Virginia. It takes a minimum of four
> years to remove anybody from the rolls. We run a
> tight ship, but in a county with a large, highly
> mobile population, things get missed.

First, you insisted that people simply filled out and sent in a form. Then you allowed as how some minimal document checking and cross-matching did indeed occur. Now you've got resources comparable to those used in taking out Osama bin Laden being thrown at the problem. Your inconsistency is kind of killing your credibility. At least, what was left of it.

> But hey - you want a job, let me know. We can
> always use more election officers.

I don't do lower-level work. I do the show-runner stuff. Put another way, I have worked WITH a lot of people over the years. I have never worked FOR anyone.

Get a grip, Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We don't know how many elephants are massing in
> the woods preparing to attack us either. It's
> goober-speak, Brian, and you've been around
> politics long enough to know that full well. The
> legitimate research into voter fraud all shows
> that it simply doesn't exist. It's a non-problem.
> Raising Cain over it anyway is beyond dishonest.
> So far beyond it that more serious flaws and
> shortcomings have to come up for consideration.

No, it isn't. A large number of people share the belief that voter fraud is a legitimate, major problem. Even if you disagree or you think that there's no legitimacy to that belief it is still a belief and it needs to be addressed. There are a lot of issues that have small impacts that play an inordinate role in public life that we have to address. This is one of them.

> So just more back-and-forth paper-pushing. Nothing
> on the table. Same as it ever was. Yet you want
> to trumpet this as evidence of some sort.

No, I'm simply saying that the last time, we did not publicize anything and nothing happened. This time we did, and things are happening. You asked for a case, I answered your question.

> Pointless. Republicans -- at the very highest
> levels -- have for years touted the supposed
> democracy-destroying dangers of voter fraud. Do
> you deny that? There is actually no such danger
> at all. None. Do you deny that? If "No" and
> "No", how do you rationalize the behavior we have
> seen?

I deny that it's at the highest levels and I think your question is misguided. The point isn't whether fraud itself is democracy-destroying. The perception that fraud is endemic and is changing election outcomes is democracy-destroying. It's a problem that has to be addressed.

> Not sure who the "guys" are, but I am pretty
> clearly stating on the basis of copious and
> reliable evidence that voter fraud is so rare as
> to be completely insignificant. Especially the
> only type of fraud that is likely to be affected
> by voter-id laws.

And I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is and remains that the perception has a bigger impact than the actual behavior itself. Terrorism doesn't kill large numbers of Americans every year but we spend a lot of time and money trying to prevent it. This is analogous to that (but obviously not on the same scale).

> The "If not" part is just more elephant-talk.
> Otherwise, how will it help? Voter-impersonation
> is the rarest form of vote fraud. How do voter-id
> laws go to detering crooked election officials
> from manipulating and tampering with absentee
> ballots? The one-and-only answer is: They don't.
> They have no effect at all in that regard.
> Voter-id laws have little effect on an
> insignifcant problem. The motives and intentions
> of these laws of course lie somewhere else
> entirely.

It helps because it increases public belief that the process is fair and that fraud is being prevented from impacting elections. That increased belief reduced cynicism and helps raise confidence in the process.

That can only be a benefit.

> All the credible evidence that exists is held by
> voter-id opponents. And "widespread" is of course
> not a valid metric. It's illegal to murder even
> one person. Improper constraint of voting rights
> is no different. "We didn't really screw over all
> that many people" is not a legitimate defense or
> excuse. You should resign your position. In
> disgrace. If you ever did, you no longer meet the
> minimum qualifications for public service.

Says the anonymous guy who calls everybody a dipshit on Fairfax Underground. I don't think you've got a lot of credibility to be calling on anybody to do much of anything. But thanks for the advice.

> Vote suppression is, and there is NO OTHER REASON
> AT ALL for voter-id laws.

False. I've already explained the reasoning and you're ignoring it because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. THAT might
> qualify as common sense. But you are railing here
> in full 180-degree opposition to that notion. You
> don't make common sense here. You don't make any
> sort of sense at all. It's all naked partisan BS
> arising from demographic paranoia.

The problem is that something is broken - faith in the process. Has been since 2000. We're trying to fix it. I'm not being partisan and I'm not afraid of demographics. I think the Republican message appeals to everybody, regardless of race, ethnicity or anything else. I don't want to stop people from voting. I want to see them persuaded to vote for the GOP.

> No, you lied through your teeth before, and you
> are doing it again now. This is what worthless
> pussies do. The barriers created are significant
> enough to have actual impact in reducing the
> numbers of individuals within the targeted and
> disfavored classes who ultimately manage to vote.
> The elderly who are poor, disabled, or minority DO
> NOT VOTE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN. Only a total
> fathead could make such a statement. Or perhaps a
> dipshit.

Here we go again. Find me some data to support your supposition. Here's mine: http://www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

We've descended into name calling territory again now, so thanks for demonstrating to anybody left here that you're losing the debate.

> That sort of mealy-mouthed babble got Nazis hanged
> at Nuremberg. Meanwhile, you are such an
> inveterate and ingrained partisan hack that you
> assume everyone must be. That's pitiful. There
> ARE actual non-partisans and independents in the
> world. Try playing a road game in their ballpark
> for a change.

No, what hung the Nazis was following orders without thinking about the morality of those orders and letting the highers up take the blame. Your history knowledge leaves much to be desired.

I have spent the last couple of years trying to get folks in my party to stop the nonsense, and I've taken the lumps for it. You know this, so I don't know why you're pretending that I'm some Tea Partier who has never criticized my own party for making mistakes.

> Does not exactly comport well with the established
> fact that it is these well-controlled officers of
> yours who commit nearly ALL of the vote fraud that
> actually occurs in this country. Going after them
> of course would not oprovide any particular
> partisan advantage. Keeping minorities and the
> urban and rural poor away from the polls WOULD of
> course provide such an advantage. That's why you
> have deliberately targeted those groups in your
> disgraceful vote suppression schemes.

First you said voter fraud is insignificant. Now you're accusing us of it. If it's not significant, why bother with this line of attack? Don't be a hypocrite.

Besides, you've got no facts to support that statement.

> Give it up, Dopey. Or does it say Bashful on your
> voter card? You are not being honest at all. You
> are prevaricating left and right in a clumsy and
> transparent attempt to dance away from further
> self-incrimination.

I'm being honest - look at the form. I have no reason to lie here. I'm writing under my own name and answering questions from everybody who asks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2014 01:49PM by BrianSchoeneman.

Get a grip, Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, so it's not just a matter of sending in a form
> after all. See what I mean about clumsy? Your
> pals actually do try to do document-matching but
> they really aren't very good at it. Is that the
> new story you have for us today?

Of course it's just a matter of sending in a form. What happens afterwards has nothing to do with the voter.

> I'm a little tired of that sloppy-ass ingenue
> bullshit, Brian. Suppression manifests itself in
> vastly lower individual rates of voting among
> those in the targeted classes.

That's also known to those of us who aren't paid by the word as "low turnout."


> They plummet all
> the way from 100% (Yes, I was able to vote today)
> to 0% (No, I was not able to vote today), and it
> all happens because of YOU. Your one and only
> intention here is to keep as many high-likelihood
> Dem voters as you can away from the polls. There
> are no excuses for it. There are no cover-ups.
> What you are defending is the deliberate use of
> carefully crafted blockades and barriers to create
> classes of second-tier citizens -- citizens who
> will NOT be given an equal opportunity to vote.
> Again, that is Jim Crow disgraceful, and so are
> all those who either actively or passively promote
> it. That would of course include you.

This is simply not true. It's not happening. And when voter turnout is up this fall over past mid-term federal elections despite the new voter ID law, you'll have to come up with some new way to pretend that voter ID is actually voter suppression.

If I believed that Voter ID had an appreciable impact on voter turnout and was actively being pushed simply to stop Democrats from voting, I would oppose it on moral grounds. I don't believe any of that is true, and it will take facts, not name-calling, to persuade me otherwise.

> Voter-id laws ARE Jim Crow laws
> -- just watered down and rebranded to better suit
> modern-day sensibilities. You can't just keep all
> blacks from the polls any more. But with enough
> spin, repetition, and the resultant complicity of
> enough stupid people, you can keep enough likely
> Dem voters away from the polls to influence the
> outcomes of elections, and THAT'S the one and only
> goal that Republicans actually have in all this.

They aren't remotely similar, and they don't have that impact. Jim Crow laws were designed to prevent black voting by not allowing them to register in the first place. Voter ID doesn't stop registration, and it doesn't stop voting. It simply requires you present a form of ID that the vast majority of the population has and can be received for free from the authorities.

To even equate voter ID to Jim Crow is beyond insulting. Black voters in the south fought against intimidation, lynching, water cannons and police dogs to get their right to vote. You're trying to compare that to someone having to stand in line for ten minutes at their registrar's office to get an ID?

Jim Crow resulted in people's death. Voter ID, at worse, is an inconvenience. How can you even compare the two with a straight face?

I've had about enough of this nonsense now.

I don't understand Brian's line of reasoning here.

1. There is probably little, if any, actual voter fraud.
2. However, ignorant (Republican) voters believe that voter fraud is endemic (at least among Democrats).
3. We have to restore faith in 'the process' by requiring voter IDs. This will reassure Republican voters.

Sadly, however, this will not reassure Democratic voters, who see this as a blatant attempt to suppress the Democratic vote. The fact that some Republican politicians have implied that that is their goal lends credence to the notion that voter ID is just the reincarnation of Jim Crow laws. Add to this the arbitrary restrictive voting times that Republicans are attempting to impose, and it's not reassuring.

If Brian is saying that 'its the thought that counts', then he should be able to recognize that attempting to appease ignorant Republicans is royally pissing off Democrats. It sure as hell ain't restoring 'faith in the process' for us.

The loss of faith in the process isn't just a Republican thing. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Democrats, you rightly noted, view Voter ID as an attack on them. Whether or not that is true, it is a perception and it need to be addressed. That's why I have fought for and supported other things Democrats like - like reducing the number of reasons absentee ballots can be disqualified and expanding absentee in-person voting beyond anything we've seen before in Fairfax. We have gone out of our way to make voting easier, to shorten lines, and to take everything out of the office and into the field so that we can reduce the burden and inconvenience on people.

The goal is to ensure that everybody who is qualified to vote can do so easily and quickly. That's what I support and that's what we've been working towards since I've been in the Board.

One other important thing to note. When it comes to dealing with voter fraud and the perception of voter fraud, that can only be addressed by the legislature and by local public officials. When dealing with concerns about voter suppression and the perception of voter suppression, individuals and the political parties can both directly combat those issues. If you think voter ID will turn people away, work with those who don't have ID to help them get it.

Both parties do a good job on Election Day to turn out voters and the same systems in place to identify and get those folks to the polls can get them where they need to go to get ID before Election Day.

Instead of name calling and complaining, actually do something.

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, "propagandists" like Obama's DOJ under
> Holder which issues bogus press releases
> regarding arrests to feed the "right wing echo
> chamber." lol

Wake up, genius. For the nth time, arrests are not convictions, and the sources of these hundreds upon hundreds of references to the arrest -- but not the conviction -- of Maria Azada are not the DOJ, but rather the seemingly endless numbers of copy-machine grade right-wing echo-chamber websites. In their minds, if a thing can be repeated often enough, it won't matter anymore whether it is actually true or not. People will come to believe first, that it is in fact true, and second, that it must in fact be significant. Well, dumb people will come to believe that anyway, and dumb people are of course the prime targets of the right-wing and their propaganda media. People with any degree of actual intelligence tend to be immune to such slop.

> That's the problem with simple-minded analogies
> which don't quite match the circumstances. See
> below.

LOL! The analogy is fine. It's your well-washed brain that is falling short here. Canvassers cheat their employers (e.g., ACORN) by submitting registration forms that they have not come by honestly. Ethical operators (e.g., ACORN) screen and make attempts to verify forms received before turning them in. They batch suspicious forms separately. They further terminate employees who are associated with patterns of fraudulent forms and turn the evidence they uncover over to authorities for potential prosecution. Macy's faces exactly the same problem and they address it in exactly the same way. When their cameras and floor-walkers link a particular employee to patterns of inventory evaporation, that employee is terminated and the evidence uncovered is turned over to authorities for potential prosecution. See how that works?

> Another day, still wrong. Both Busefink and
> Edwards were convicted and sentenced...

N.B. -- Neither of them was convicted. In an attempt to save his own butt, Edwards -- the rogue author of the bonus scheme -- pled guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges in exchange for providing testimony against others. He subsequently stated that he had discussed his plan with Busefink, but he could not produce memos, e-mails, meeting notes, phone records, or any other contemporaneous records in support of those claims. Busefink would ultimately enter an Alford plea simply to extricate herself from what had become a protracted legal circus. ACORN was gone after all, and in her late 20's at the time, she had a new career to pursue back on the east coast. She had worked at the national ACORN office in Washington DC, but was charged with having been in Nevada and having visited the ACORN office in Las Vegas for a few hours at that time. While prosecutors did not provide evidence connecting her to it, they insisted that Busefink must somehow have become aware of the scheme during her brief visit. That was their case. Meanwhile, neither an Alford plea nor anyone's plea bargain constitutes a conviction. These are horses of different legal colors. If you didn't know that, perhaps you should not have opened your mouth quite so far.

As for the state supreme court case, the relevant section of Nevada law includes an extensive list of definitions of terms that are used in that section. No definition of "compensation" is provided. In typical labor law application, "compensation" would refer to amounts regularly provided in exchange for the satisfactory performance of specified and agreed upon services. Bonuses and/or special recognition and honoraria would not be included. ACORN workers in Nevada (and everywhere else) were paid on an hourly basis. That is not in dispute. For a few weeks in this one office and with no record of approval from an ACORN higher-up, one local supervisor gave $5 honoraria to as many as "several" workers who completed exceptional shifts. This was done unilaterally and outside the established terms of employment. The question at law then should be whether such impromptu, off-the-cuff payments qualify as compensation or not. Some states explicitly say that they would. Some states explicitly say that they would not. As noted, the Nevada statute is explicitly silent on the matter. To conclude that they should be counted as compensation under relevant Nevada law requires an arbitrary assumption that the state legislature actively intended in this one instance to abridge and override an employer's otherwise implicit right to reward strong performance and punish poor performance, while choosing not to make any mention of the fact at the time. The 2012 ruling in any case upheld only a rational basis power of the state legislature to create such a statute. It did not reflect in any way on the merits or quality of the statute, on the actions of ACORN, or on any person ever to have worked for ACORN.

> Unlike you, I have no "handlers" and, no, it
> didn't. You're misrepresenting your own sources
> now.

You're a limited-scope, dyed-in the wool right-winger who's been quite thoroughly handled. And taken together, these sources are more than clear. One after another, they point out that cases of actual voter-impersonation fraud are extremely rare. So rare as to be completely trivial and well beyond the pale of any sort of electoral relevance. Your attempts at protest over the matter are far weaker than feeble.

> But I agree to some extent that it's not something
> that happens in huge numbers. At the same time,
> it's also not nearly as rare to the point of being
> nonexistent as some like you try to play it.
> That's not even considering absentee ballots,
> double voting, polling/poll worker abuses, and
> various other fraud and abuse. On both sides.

Those who talk about "sides" are on one of them. Voter-ID laws are meanwhile not going to have any affect at all with regard to fraud arising from tampering with absentee ballots, double voting, or any sort of shenanigans by poll workers. The only form of fraud that these laws can have any effect on is voter impersonation fraud -- the very type that barely exists to begin with. The real impetus behind these laws is Republican fears and desires to do whatever they can to minimize the numbers of votes being cast by groups of voters who traditionally support Democrats. There has been panic in the streets among some ever since the implications of changing US demographics were first assessed and set out by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in 2002. The process since has been relentless and inexorable.

Having to present an ID makes those who are considering fraud, think twice.
As far as discouraging people to vote, the results prove different. It's just a storyboard created by Dems.

Nice shot, voter.

^ There are people trying to have an intelligent discussion here. You two are not adding to it. Either contribute something of substance - backed up by facts - or GTFO.

The rat smells cheese.

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, "propagandists" like Obama's DOJ under
> > Holder which issues bogus press releases
> > regarding arrests to feed the "right wing echo
> > chamber." lol
>
> Wake up, genius. For the nth time, arrests are
> not convictions, and the sources of these hundreds
> upon hundreds of references to the arrest -- but
> not the conviction -- of Maria Azada are not the
> DOJ, but rather the seemingly endless numbers of
> copy-machine grade right-wing echo-chamber
> websites. In their minds, if a thing can be
> repeated often enough, it won't matter anymore
> whether it is actually true or not. People will
> come to believe first, that it is in fact true,
> and second, that it must in fact be significant.
> Well, dumb people will come to believe that
> anyway, and dumb people are of course the prime
> targets of the right-wing and their propaganda
> media. People with any degree of actual
> intelligence tend to be immune to such slop.


Ummm, dumbshit, you realize that the original press release came directly from ICE right? I know that probably was confusing for you since I posted the link to the source as it appears on its site:

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakecounty.htm

So let me see if I have your reasoning on this right... If ICE makes an arrest and issues a press release and then Drudge or any of the other "right-wing echo chamber" outlets happen to pick up on the story and republish it, then that somehow magically turns the original story into "right-wing propaganda?" Is that right? lmao


>
> > That's the problem with simple-minded analogies
> > which don't quite match the circumstances. See
> > below.
>
> LOL! The analogy is fine. It's your well-washed
> brain that is falling short here. Canvassers
> cheat their employers (e.g., ACORN) by submitting
> registration forms that they have not come by
> honestly. Ethical operators (e.g., ACORN) screen
> and make attempts to verify forms received before
> turning them in. They batch suspicious forms
> separately. They further terminate employees who
> are associated with patterns of fraudulent forms
> and turn the evidence they uncover over to
> authorities for potential prosecution. Macy's
> faces exactly the same problem and they address it
> in exactly the same way. When their cameras and
> floor-walkers link a particular employee to
> patterns of inventory evaporation, that employee
> is terminated and the evidence uncovered is turned
> over to authorities for potential prosecution.
> See how that works?


Uh, no. ACORN itself and its employees in their roles as managers at the organization were charged and found guilty of illegally paying for voter registrations. It was not a case of employees "stealing from them." Your analogy is off point.

A closer example might be if Macy's employees were involved in some discriminatory practices against some workers/customers or other illegal activities with some demonstrable knowledge or negligence on the part of Macy's. In such cases, and many others, the organization definitely may be and routinely is held responsible for the actions of its employees and agents. Likewise if they fail to properly train and supervise employees as in other cases where ACORN similarly was fined.


>
> > Another day, still wrong. Both Busefink and
> > Edwards were convicted and sentenced...
>
> N.B. -- Neither of them was convicted. In an
> attempt to save his own butt, Edwards -- the rogue
> author of the bonus scheme -- pled guilty to
> reduced misdemeanor charges in exchange for
> providing testimony against others. He
> subsequently stated that he had discussed his plan
> with Busefink, but he could not produce memos,
> e-mails, meeting notes, phone records, or any
> other contemporaneous records in support of those
> claims. Busefink would ultimately enter an Alford
> plea simply to extricate herself from what had
> become a protracted legal circus. ACORN was gone
> after all, and in her late 20's at the time, she
> had a new career to pursue back on the east coast.
> She had worked at the national ACORN office in
> Washington DC, but was charged with having been in
> Nevada and having visited the ACORN office in Las
> Vegas for a few hours at that time. While
> prosecutors did not provide evidence connecting
> her to it, they insisted that Busefink must
> somehow have become aware of the scheme during her
> brief visit. That was their case. Meanwhile,
> neither an Alford plea nor anyone's plea bargain
> constitutes a conviction. These are horses of
> different legal colors. If you didn't know that,
> perhaps you should not have opened your mouth
> quite so far.
>
> As for the state supreme court case, the relevant
> section of Nevada law includes an extensive list
> of definitions of terms that are used in that
> section. No definition of "compensation" is
> provided. In typical labor law application,
> "compensation" would refer to amounts regularly
> provided in exchange for the satisfactory
> performance of specified and agreed upon services.
> Bonuses and/or special recognition and honoraria
> would not be included. ACORN workers in Nevada
> (and everywhere else) were paid on an hourly
> basis. That is not in dispute. For a few weeks in
> this one office and with no record of approval
> from an ACORN higher-up, one local supervisor gave
> $5 honoraria to as many as "several" workers who
> completed exceptional shifts. This was done
> unilaterally and outside the established terms of
> employment. The question at law then should be
> whether such impromptu, off-the-cuff payments
> qualify as compensation or not. Some states
> explicitly say that they would. Some states
> explicitly say that they would not. As noted, the
> Nevada statute is explicitly silent on the matter.
> To conclude that they should be counted as
> compensation under relevant Nevada law requires an
> arbitrary assumption that the state legislature
> actively intended in this one instance to abridge
> and override an employer's otherwise implicit
> right to reward strong performance and punish poor
> performance, while choosing not to make any
> mention of the fact at the time. The 2012 ruling
> in any case upheld only a rational basis power of
> the state legislature to create such a statute.
> It did not reflect in any way on the merits or
> quality of the statute, on the actions of ACORN,
> or on any person ever to have worked for ACORN.


None of your tangential and oh so tedious attempt at amateur legal analysis changes the fact that all were charged, found guilty, and sentenced for their crimes (aka convicted). The NV State Prosecutor's, judge's, and the State Supreme Court's understanding of the law, the actions of ACORN and the associated charges, and findings >> your bullshit.

The State Supreme Court's decision was specific to Busefink's appeal. Without a conviction, there could be no appeal of a conviction and there could be no decision by the court affirming the conviction, specifically writing, if it hasn't cut through your fog to this point, "Accordingly, we affirm judgement of conviction."

Contrary to your claim otherwise, the decision absolutely does address the specific actions of Busefink/ACORN's relevant to the law and goes into great detail in demonstrating the legal basis and quality of the State's legitimate interest in restricting payment associated with canvassing. Try reading it, e.g., the discussion on and around page 12 relevant to the second question before the court and matters of vagueness, etc., as you attempted above. They make their findings very clear shooting down Busefink (and you) on all such contentions.

The rest of your ideological idiocy isn't worth responding to.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A large number of people share the belief that voter
> fraud is a legitimate, major problem. Even if you
> disagree or you think that there's no legitimacy to
> that belief it is still a belief and it needs to be
> addressed.

That's just scary. A large number of people share the belief that blacks are an inferior race, that women are an inferior gender, and that gays are an insult to God. People of character work to eradicate such foolish beliefs. They do not go around saying that we need to "do something" about blacks, women, and gays. You've really gone way out onto the moral low-ground here. I had thought of you as one of the more interesting and responsible posters here, but I Won't be paying any attention to you again.

Not pretty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A large number of people share the belief that
> voter
> > fraud is a legitimate, major problem. Even if
> you
> > disagree or you think that there's no legitimacy
> to
> > that belief it is still a belief and it needs to
> be
> > addressed.
>
> That's just scary. A large number of people share
> the belief that blacks are an inferior race, that
> women are an inferior gender, and that gays are an
> insult to God. People of character work to
> eradicate such foolish beliefs. They do not go
> around saying that we need to "do something" about
> blacks, women, and gays. You've really gone way
> out onto the moral low-ground here. I had thought
> of you as one of the more interesting and
> responsible posters here, but I Won't be paying
> any attention to you again.

I am working to eradicate the belief that voter fraud is endemic by implementing the photo ID law passed by the legislature and working hard to make sure anybody who needs an ID gets one before election day.

I will just have to live with you not paying attention me. It will be hard, but I will try to persevere.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not pretty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A large number of people share the belief
> that
> > voter
> > > fraud is a legitimate, major problem. Even if
> > you
> > > disagree or you think that there's no
> legitimacy
> > to
> > > that belief it is still a belief and it needs
> to
> > be
> > > addressed.
> >
> > That's just scary. A large number of people
> share
> > the belief that blacks are an inferior race,
> that
> > women are an inferior gender, and that gays are
> an
> > insult to God. People of character work to
> > eradicate such foolish beliefs. They do not go
> > around saying that we need to "do something"
> about
> > blacks, women, and gays. You've really gone
> way
> > out onto the moral low-ground here. I had
> thought
> > of you as one of the more interesting and
> > responsible posters here, but I Won't be paying
> > any attention to you again.
>
> I am working to eradicate the belief that voter
> fraud is endemic by implementing the photo ID law
> passed by the legislature and working hard to make
> sure anybody who needs an ID gets one before
> election day.
>
> I will just have to live with you not paying
> attention me. It will be hard, but I will try to
> persevere.

Brian, I had to jump through hoops in order to vote in the "Firehouse primary." My name wasn't on the rolls because I voted in one, yes one, Democratic primary in the past five years. I voted in every Republican primary since 2000, except that one time.

The election official asked me straight out "You are a Democrat, aren't you?
I thought we didn't have party registration in the commonwealth?

In order to vote I had to sign a pledge that I will support the winner in November, I had to sign a statement saying I will have nothing to do with the Democratic Party, and I will be a loyal Republican from now on.

This crap is what happens when Republican are allowed to set the rules on voting.

Since I signed the pledge of support, and renounced the Democratic party, can I be sued or go to jail for voter fraud if I vote for the Democrat in November?

If I give you my name after I vote for the Democrat in November, and also sign a confession that I actually did vote for the Democrat, would you have me arresst for voter fraud? I mean I signed a contract saying I would support the Republican, and I did not, so, that is a violation of contract, correct?

Firehouse primaries aren't run by local elections officials - they are run by the parties. So their rules are different. RPV expects that in firehouse primaries and conventions, only Republicans participate and they routinely question folks who have crossed party lines why they did it.

The loyalty oaths are common and both sides generally do them. They are not binding. They are there to deter people who may have qualms about signing something, but they are effectively unenforceable.

That's why I think it's dumb to even bother with them and I support party registration and closed primaries run by local electoral boards to choose candidates for office.

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ummm, dumbshit, you realize that the original press
> release came directly from ICE right? I know that
> probably was confusing for you since I posted the
> link to the source as it appears on its> site:
> http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakecounty.htm

Not confusing at all. The DOJ press release is an everyday, plain-speak, one-from-many report.

> So let me see if I have your reasoning on this
> right... If ICE makes an arrest and issues a press
> release and then Drudge or any of the other
> "right-wing echo chamber" outlets happen to pick
> up on the story and republish it, then that
> somehow magically turns the original story into
> "right-wing propaganda?" Is that right? lmao

Yes, that's correct. Sensationalized plastering of the walls with many-from-one copies is a thoroughly dishonest technique for making a trivial matter seem like something earth-shattering -- i.e., something much more than what it actually is. People of any intelligence at all are apt to see right through these simplistic sorts of goober fuzz-bombs, but obviously there are those who are simply too dumb to manage that much. As routinely as you seem to have been snookered by it, you might seriously want to read up on just how propaganda is carried out, the better perhaps to be able to to protect yourself from it in the future.

> Uh, no. ACORN itself and its employees in their
> roles as managers at the organization were charged
> and found guilty of illegally paying for voter
> registrations. It was not a case of employees
> "stealing from them." Your analogy is off point.

First of all, this was not a case of either voter fraud or voter registration fraud, so it was out of the original loop from the get go. But it was the only thing that google could provide you with, and beggars can't be choosy, can they. Second of all and as has already been pointed out, agreeing to reduced charges and entering an Alford plea are not examples of being "convicted" or of having been "found guilty" of anything. Your ignorance of both the process and terminology of the law is very close to complete.

> None of your tangential and oh so tedious attempt
> at amateur legal analysis changes the fact that
> all were charged, found guilty, and sentenced for
> their crimes (aka convicted). The NV State
> Prosecutor's, judge's, and the State Supreme
> Court's understanding of the law, the actions of
> ACORN and the associated charges, and findings >>
> your bullshit.

So basically, the problem here is that everything I said simply went right over your head. LOL!

> The State Supreme Court's decision was specific to
> Busefink's appeal. Without a conviction, there
> could be no appeal of a conviction and
> there could be no decision by the court affirming
> the conviction, specifically writing, if it
> hasn't cut through your fog to this point,
> "Accordingly, we affirm judgement of
> conviction."

The key word there is "judgement". But that too flies right past you. An Alford plea often results in a judge entering "conviction" as the disposition of a case. But that is the unilateral administrative act of a judge, not the rendering of a verdict by a jury after hearing evidence and engaging in due deliberation. I'm sure you are dumb enough to see no difference, however.

> Contrary to your claim otherwise, the decision
> absolutely does address the specific actions of
> Busefink/ACORN's relevant to the law and goes into
> great detail in demonstrating the legal basis and
> quality of the State's legitimate interest in
> restricting payment associated with canvassing.
> Try reading it, e.g., the discussion on and around
> page 12 relevant to the second question before the
> court and matters of vagueness, etc., as you
> attempted above. They make their findings very
> clear shooting down Busefink (and you) on all such
> contentions.

Let me offer a much-needed upgrade to your intelligence here. Appellate courts do not try matters of fact. Neither do they rule on matters not brought before them. The ONLY two matters considered by the Nevada Supreme Court in this case were 1) whether the statute was violative of First Amendment free speech protections (as various similar statutes had been found by other courts to be), and 2) whether the statute as written was sufficiently vague as to render it unenforceable.

Free speech of course is a fundamental right. Ordinarily, restrictions of it are evaluated under strict scrutiny, meaning that the state would need to show a compelling interest in the regulation and that its regulation had been narrowly tailored to the protection of that interest. The Court in this case surprisingly declined to go that route, according the case a rational basis review instead. Unless a law has absolutely no sense to it at all, it is likely to survive rational basis review.

The court then failed to note the lack of statutory clarification of the intended meanings of the terms included in this section of the statute. It assumed instead that a person of ordinary intelligence would fully understand what was and was not permitted under the statute simply from reading the words as enacted, even though their learned selves were having to slog along through one page after another in attempting to come to anything close to such an understanding.

The Court did at least have the grace to admit that they were going to great lengths here to find a means by which to save the statute. Kind of explains some of the strained reasoning.

So in the end, it is all about the law here. There is nothing about ACORN or anyone who ever worked at ACORN. That -- as you so completely fail to understand -- is not the domain or province of the Court.

> The rest of your ideological idiocy isn't worth
> responding to.

Meaning simply that you lack a means or basis for any response. You are sadly both ignorant and uninformed. Those two things are going to slow a lot of people down.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am working to eradicate the belief that voter
> fraud is endemic by implementing the photo ID law
> passed by the legislature and working hard to make
> sure anybody who needs an ID gets one before
> election day.

Your other posts make it sound like you are doing exactly the opposite.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Firehouse primaries aren't run by local elections
> officials - they are run by the parties. So their
> rules are different. RPV expects that in firehouse
> primaries and conventions, only Republicans
> participate and they routinely question folks who
> have crossed party lines why they did it.
>
> The loyalty oaths are common and both sides
> generally do them. They are not binding. They are
> there to deter people who may have qualms about
> signing something, but they are effectively
> unenforceable.
>
> That's why I think it's dumb to even bother with
> them and I support party registration and closed
> primaries run by local electoral boards to choose
> candidates for office.


So, what you are saying is, if Republicans are given "control" of the voting process, they will make sure only Republican "sycophants" vote. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.

/backs away slowly

A question for Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Brian, I had to jump through hoops in order to
> vote in the "Firehouse primary." My name wasn't
> on the rolls because I voted in one, yes one,
> Democratic primary in the past five years. I
> voted in every Republican primary since 2000,
> except that one time.
>

I voted in a Dem primary a few years ago. What struck me were six of the biggest firemen I ever met with arms crossed standing along the sign-in line. Very intimidating that they were just standing there, but they said and did nothing that I observed.

There was no checking any list of names. Just the pledge form. No ID check either.

And the kicker, when I went to put my paper ballot in the box, I found two unmarked ballots on the same table. I could have voted three times. Instead, I turned them in to the guy collecting the pledge forms. He did not seem interested in them at all.

I concluded that firehouse primaries have no oversight and can be done any which way the party wants.

I will let you form your own conclusions, but I found these names of convicted fraudsters interesting:

Valensia, Monique, Pelonne, Maurice, Kashawn, Liltovia, Evangeline, Lilkevia, Radonna, Kwaim, Tyaira

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ummm, dumbshit, you realize that the original
> press
> > release came directly from ICE right? I know
> that
> > probably was confusing for you since I posted
> the
> > link to the source as it appears on its> site:
> >
> http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakeco
> unty.htm
>
> Not confusing at all. The DOJ press release is an
> everyday, plain-speak, one-from-many report.
>
> > So let me see if I have your reasoning on this
> > right... If ICE makes an arrest and issues a
> press
> > release and then Drudge or any of the other
> > "right-wing echo chamber" outlets happen to
> pick
> > up on the story and republish it, then that
> > somehow magically turns the original story into
> > "right-wing propaganda?" Is that right? lmao
>
>
> Yes, that's correct. Sensationalized plastering
> of the walls with many-from-one copies is a
> thoroughly dishonest technique for making a
> trivial matter seem like something
> earth-shattering -- i.e., something much more than
> what it actually is. People of any intelligence
> at all are apt to see right through these
> simplistic sorts of goober fuzz-bombs, but
> obviously there are those who are simply too dumb
> to manage that much. As routinely as you seem to
> have been snookered by it, you might seriously
> want to read up on just how propaganda is carried
> out, the better perhaps to be able to to protect
> yourself from it in the future.


Is there some magic number for how many times or sites something must be copied to when that changes? If both "right-wing" and "left-wing" sites pick something up do they cancel one another on a one-for-one basis or is there a more complex weighting involved? If Fox carries a speech by Obama or Drudge links to a NYT story does that then make it "right-wing propaganda?" When hundreds of left-wing "echo chamber" sites pick up something from Huffington or Media Matters, does that similarly make it "left-wing propaganda" or is it simply the "truth." lol

Yours is a unique high-octane ideology-fueled form of stupidity...

The report came from ICE. Because other sites picked it up, including the Chicago and other newspapers not just "right-wing propaganda sites," doesn't change the facts of the case. She was arrested. She admitted to voting. There is independent evidence of her voting. Copying those facts does not change them.


>
> > Uh, no. ACORN itself and its employees in
> their
> > roles as managers at the organization were
> charged
> > and found guilty of illegally paying for voter
> > registrations. It was not a case of employees
> > "stealing from them." Your analogy is off
> point.
>
> First of all, this was not a case of either voter
> fraud or voter registration fraud, so it was out
> of the original loop from the get go. But it was
> the only thing that google could provide you with,
> and beggars can't be choosy, can they. Second of
> all and as has already been pointed out, agreeing
> to reduced charges and entering an Alford plea are
> not examples of being "convicted" or of having
> been "found guilty" of anything. Your ignorance
> of both the process and terminology of the law is
> very close to complete.


NRS 293.805 was passed specifically as an anti-voter registration fraud measure. Partially as a direct result of prior activities of ACORN. There are no specific "voter registration fraud" statues (at least in most states). There are a variety of defined unlawful acts associated with voter registration practices and fraud, compensation among them, which are prohibited on that basis and, therefore, applicable.

An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea. She was convicted and sentenced. Her conviction was upheld. As were Edwards and ACORN based on their guilty pleas. Because someone pleads guilty or bargains down charges, they don't somehow escape conviction by any legal definition or practical result.


>
> > None of your tangential and oh so tedious
> attempt
> > at amateur legal analysis changes the fact that
> > all were charged, found guilty, and sentenced
> for
> > their crimes (aka convicted). The NV State
> > Prosecutor's, judge's, and the State Supreme
> > Court's understanding of the law, the actions
> of
> > ACORN and the associated charges, and findings
> >>
> > your bullshit.
>
> So basically, the problem here is that everything
> I said simply went right over your head. LOL!
>
> > The State Supreme Court's decision was specific
> to
> > Busefink's appeal. Without a conviction, there
> > could be no appeal of a conviction and
> > there could be no decision by the court
> affirming
> > the conviction, specifically writing, if
> it
> > hasn't cut through your fog to this point,
> > "Accordingly, we affirm judgement of
> > conviction."
>
> The key word there is "judgement". But that too
> flies right past you. An Alford plea often
> results in a judge entering "conviction" as the
> disposition of a case. But that is the unilateral
> administrative act of a judge, not the rendering
> of a verdict by a jury after hearing evidence and
> engaging in due deliberation. I'm sure you are
> dumb enough to see no difference, however.


So now you're questioning whether a judge has the legal authority to decide a case independent of a jury verdict? You really need to go back to Google law school.

No, the judge does not enter anything as a "conviction." An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea. She was adjudged guilty and sentenced (aka convicted). Once again, had she not been found guilty, there would be no need for an appeal of her conviction and no decision upholding her conviction.

>
> > Contrary to your claim otherwise, the decision
> > absolutely does address the specific actions of
> > Busefink/ACORN's relevant to the law and goes
> into
> > great detail in demonstrating the legal basis
> and
> > quality of the State's legitimate interest in
> > restricting payment associated with canvassing.
>
> > Try reading it, e.g., the discussion on and
> around
> > page 12 relevant to the second question before
> the
> > court and matters of vagueness, etc., as you
> > attempted above. They make their findings very
> > clear shooting down Busefink (and you) on all
> such
> > contentions.
>
> Let me offer a much-needed upgrade to your
> intelligence here. Appellate courts do not try
> matters of fact. Neither do they rule on matters
> not brought before them. The ONLY two matters
> considered by the Nevada Supreme Court in this
> case were 1) whether the statute was violative of
> First Amendment free speech protections (as
> various similar statutes had been found by other
> courts to be), and 2) whether the statute as
> written was sufficiently vague as to render it
> unenforceable.
>
> Free speech of course is a fundamental right.
> Ordinarily, restrictions of it are evaluated under
> strict scrutiny, meaning that the state would need
> to show a compelling interest in the regulation
> and that its regulation had been narrowly tailored
> to the protection of that interest. The Court in
> this case surprisingly declined to go that route,
> according the case a rational basis review
> instead. Unless a law has absolutely no sense to
> it at all, it is likely to survive rational basis
> review.
>
> The court then failed to note the lack of
> statutory clarification of the intended meanings
> of the terms included in this section of the
> statute. It assumed instead that a person of
> ordinary intelligence would fully understand what
> was and was not permitted under the statute simply
> from reading the words as enacted, even though
> their learned selves were having to slog along
> through one page after another in attempting to
> come to anything close to such an understanding.
>
> The Court did at least have the grace to admit
> that they were going to great lengths here to find
> a means by which to save the statute. Kind of
> explains some of the strained reasoning.
>
> So in the end, it is all about the law here.
> There is nothing about ACORN or anyone who ever
> worked at ACORN. That -- as you so completely
> fail to understand -- is not the domain or
> province of the Court.


If you hadn't noticed to this point, you're having to try waaaay too hard.

The appellate courts absolutely do deal with matters of fact as they relate to the proper application of the law by the lower court. As the decision considers the specific activities of ACORN with respect to, for example, fraudulent registrations submitted by ACORN justifying the State's interest, as well as the matter of vagueness as far as what is deemed "registration" as argued by Busefink. As well as numerous other specific facts of the case as they apply. Because Busefink's appeal was based on First Amendment and Constitutional grounds and the court's decision ultimately rolls up to that level in addressing her appeal, doesn't mean that it did not consider factual aspects of the case or that the facts of the specific case were irrelevant in reaching it's decision.

Your original tangential BS attempt above was to try to portray the case as some completely separate assessment of the standing and quality of the State's law independent of anything to do with the actions of Busefink/ACORN. That's not the case. The case was, very specifically, an appeal of Busefink's conviction. Her conviction was upheld. The separate convictions of Edwards and ACORN itself also stand without appeal.

>
> > The rest of your ideological idiocy isn't worth
> > responding to.
>
> Meaning simply that you lack a means or basis for
> any response. You are sadly both ignorant and
> uninformed. Those two things are going to slow a
> lot of people down.


Meaning that it was just more of your rambling partisan bullshit that's not worth responding to.

You lost.
Attachments:

What don't you understand about Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there some magic number for how many times or
> sites something must be copied to when that
> changes?

Probably not. But there is quite a big difference between one and hundreds upon hundreds. The right-wing echo-chamber got its name from exactly this sort of repetitive sensationalizing distortion and dishonesty. Your having so easily fallen for it all is an illustration of why they keep at it.

> NRS 293.805 was passed specifically as an anti-voter
> registration fraud measure. Partially as a direct
> result of prior activities of ACORN.

No, in response to prior activities of GOP partisan registration drives where $2 was paid to canvassers for signing up a single new Republican voter (that led to large numbers of faked cards pouring in), while forms that requested registration as a Democrat were simply tossed into the trash. That's just right-wing morality at work -- and it led to laws requiring registration drive operators to turn in ALL forms they received. The responsible ones -- e.g., ACORN -- batched suspicious cards, and those they could not confirm one way or the other, into separate packets. Big help to local registrars.

> There are no specific "voter registration fraud"
> statues (at least in most states).

LOL! There are such laws in virtually every state, moron. If there weren't, no one could ever have been charged with the crime. What a ridiculous goober claim to have made! Your concessions to desperation have gone well beyond appalling.

> An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea.

It's an affirmation of innocence. But why would a mindless airhead care?

> So now you're questioning whether a judge has the
> legal authority to decide a case independent of a
> jury verdict? You really need to go back to
> Google law school.

The topic is what happens in the event of an Alford plea, something that you should have looked up by now, but still so very plainly do not understand at all.

> No, the judge does not enter anything as a "conviction."

Continuation of the non-understanding of Alford pleas noted just above.

> If you hadn't noticed to this point, you're having
> to try waaaay too hard.

This is all quite easy for me. I understand the courts and the law, and I'm familiar with the particulars of this case. You fail spectacularly on all three counts.

> Meaning that it was just more of your rambling
> partisan bullshit that's not worth responding to.

Your inability to respond covers such a great deal of ground, doesn't it. Sad-sack impotence across the board.

Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is there some magic number for how many times
> or
> > sites something must be copied to when that
> > changes?
>
> Probably not. But there is quite a big difference
> between one and hundreds upon hundreds. The
> right-wing echo-chamber got its name from exactly
> this sort of repetitive sensationalizing
> distortion and dishonesty. Your having so easily
> fallen for it all is an illustration of why they
> keep at it.


Hey, whaddya know... Just like the left-wing echo chamber that you live in. Those where your own "handlers" train you to parrot things like "undocumented immigrants" (aka illegals) don't vote because they want to keep a "low profile."

Associated Press

Friday, April 18, 2014 8:46 p.m.

CARSON CITY

Secretary of State Ross Miller says a woman has been arrested on two felony charges for allegedly using a false identity to register to vote and casting ballots in Nevada elections.

Miller late Friday announced the arrest of Ortencia Segura in California.

A complaint filed by the attorney general's office says Segura registered to vote in Washoe County in August 2008 and provided identification with the name of Marisela Reyna. Authorities confirmed she voted in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Authorities say information from the Justice Department show Segura was arrested in 2012 and deported for filing a false statement on a passport application. They say she also had a false Nevada driver's license, prompting the investigation.

Miller says Segura was arrested Thursday for entering the country illegally.


>
> > NRS 293.805 was passed specifically as an
> anti-voter
> > registration fraud measure. Partially as a
> direct
> > result of prior activities of ACORN.
>
> No, in response to prior activities of GOP
> partisan registration drives where $2 was paid to
> canvassers for signing up a single new Republican
> voter (that led to large numbers of faked cards
> pouring in), while forms that requested
> registration as a Democrat were simply tossed into
> the trash. That's just right-wing morality at
> work -- and it led to laws requiring registration
> drive operators to turn in ALL forms they
> received. The responsible ones -- e.g., ACORN --
> batched suspicious cards, and those they could not
> confirm one way or the other, into separate
> packets. Big help to local registrars.


That's funny - You used the word "responsible" and ACORN in the same sentence.

Actually I didn't intend to type ACORN there but again still wrong:

"NRS 293.805 was passed in 1993 in response to an investigation of voter registration applications collected by field registrars. See Exhibit “C.” (Minutes of the Senate 3 Committee on Government Affairs, Sixty-seventh Session, March 26, 1993) Pgs. 2-3). The investigation revealed that “the Democratic Party was paying a $2.00 bounty [to field registrars] for every Democrat registered.” Id. Pg. 2"

>
> > There are no specific "voter registration
> fraud"
> > statues (at least in most states).
>
> LOL! There are such laws in virtually every
> state, moron. If there weren't, no one could ever
> have been charged with the crime. What a
> ridiculous goober claim to have made! Your
> concessions to desperation have gone well beyond
> appalling.


In typical dumbshit fashion, you took that out of context. What does the next sentence say?

Nope, they are not charged with "voter registration fraud" per se. They are charged, as here, with specific violations involving certain prohibited activities related to the registration of voters. i.e., Making false representations is distinct vs knowingly permitting your name to be registered vs registering in multiple locations vs paying someone to falsify registration vs a compensation scheme based on numbers registered. All in NV still falling within the broader category of "Acts concerning registration of voters."


>
> > An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea.
>
> It's an affirmation of innocence. But why would a
> mindless airhead care?
>
> > So now you're questioning whether a judge has
> the
> > legal authority to decide a case independent of
> a
> > jury verdict? You really need to go back to
> > Google law school.
>
> The topic is what happens in the event of an
> Alford plea, something that you should have looked
> up by now, but still so very plainly do not
> understand at all.
>
> > No, the judge does not enter anything as a
> "conviction."
>
> Continuation of the non-understanding of Alford
> pleas noted just above.


Being wrong is kind of a habit of yours huh?

An Alford plea is a concession that, given the evidence and the law, the government likely will prevail in finding a defendant guilty. It simply provides a means to accept the consequences of that guilty verdict without formally pleading guilty in cases where that may be a beneficial legal strategy. It is not an affirmation of innocence with respect to the charges. A defendant is effectively conceding "guilt" as charged as the evidence and law stand.

She went with the Alford plea since it better preserved her ability to appeal on constitutional grounds which otherwise may have been limited and/or complicated by an explicit guilty plea. i.e., She did not contest that she did what she did. She effectively stipulated that she did what she did and that she likely would be found guilty under the law. She entered the Alford so that she could immediately appeal her resulting conviction on the basis that the law unconstitutionally limited her doing what she did. Unfortunately for her, the court ruled otherwise and her conviction stands.

>
> > If you hadn't noticed to this point, you're
> having
> > to try waaaay too hard.
>
> This is all quite easy for me. I understand the
> courts and the law, and I'm familiar with the
> particulars of this case. You fail spectacularly
> on all three counts.
>


Apparently not.