A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation...

[Pants II]

The democrats have a huge advantage in poll rigging due to the open borders/mass immigration.

To try and show that Republicans are fixing the votes equal to Democrats just proves how totally clueless you are. Brits really should mind their manners concerning our elections.

You're wrong and no amount of copypasta from msm sources will make you right.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Pants II

The democrats have a huge advantage in poll rigging due to the open borders/mass immigration.

To try and show that Republicans are fixing the votes equal to Democrats just proves how totally clueless you are. Brits really should mind their manners concerning our elections.

You're wrong and no amount of copypasta from msm sources will make you right.

No one accused anyone of "fixing" elections. You should know the difference between tampering with elections and attempts to stop people from voting.

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

The party that raises taxes more presumably values the taxpayer opinion less. You might want to come over to the G.O.P.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

No one accused anyone of "fixing" elections. You should know the difference between tampering with elections and attempts to stop people from voting.

As long as I pay taxes in the U.S., I bloody well will have an opinion.

Here is what I was telling you about with regard to Gore and Lieberman trying to block the votes of some of our overseas military troops from being counted back in the 2000 election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-votes.html

[Rudeboyelvis]

Clinton campaign in full panic mode - putting up last minute 6-figure ad buys in CO, VA, NM, and MI.

The pulled out of CO and VA months ago, and have never never run ads in NM and MI.

Uh Oh.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is what I was telling you about with regard to Gore and Lieberman trying to block the votes of some of our overseas military troops from being counted back in the 2000 election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ary-votes.html

My understanding of what occurred is that Gore/Lieberman were not attempting to block legitimate votes from overseas military troops (over 1,400 absentee ballots from overseas were chucked without opening the envelopes), but requesting that the Florida Secretary of State comply with the previously accepted legal standard of rejecting ballots that did not include a postmark. (To assert that Gore/Lieberman attempted to disenfranchise military personnel stationed abroad is to presume that all the UNOPENED ballots were for Bush).

Gore/Lieberman were well within their right to demand that the FL Secretary of State enforce a voting LAW. Alas, it was a public relations bungle.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

My understanding of what occurred is that Gore/Lieberman were not attempting to block legitimate votes from overseas military troops (over 1,400 absentee ballots from overseas were chucked without opening the envelopes), but requesting that the Florida Secretary of State comply with the previously accepted legal standard of rejecting ballots that did not include a postmark. (To assert that Gore/Lieberman attempted to disenfranchise military personnel stationed abroad is to presume that all the UNOPENED ballots were for Bush).

Gore/Lieberman were well within their right to demand that the FL Secretary of State enforce a voting LAW. Alas, it was a public relations bungle.

Yes, you are correct. In terms of the letter of the law they were entitled to ask for those ballots to be disqualified. But considering all that our military troops do for the country, to try to disqualify their votes on a technicality is pretty low, especially when Gore and Lieberman kept on saying that they simply wanted all the ballots counted. That was their talking point. They kept saying that all they wanted was for everyone's votes to be counted. In reality, they only wanted more ballots to be counted if those ballots were ballots that were likely to help them. They only wanted recounts in precincts that tend to vote democrat. Since military troops lean republican, they didn't want those votes counted if there was any legal way to keep those votes from being counted.

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, you are correct. In terms of the letter of the law they were entitled to ask for those ballots to be disqualified. But considering all that our military troops do for the country, to try to disqualify their votes on a technicality is pretty low, especially when Gore and Lieberman kept on saying that they simply wanted all the ballots counted. That was their talking point. They kept saying that all they wanted was for everyone's votes to be counted. In reality, they only wanted more ballots to be counted if those ballots were ballots that were likely to help them. They only wanted recounts in precincts that tend to vote democrat. Since military troops lean republican, they didn't want those votes counted if there was any legal way to keep those votes from being counted.

What I am detecting is a wish to perpetuate the false narrative that liberals hate the military. Look, Gore/Lieberman had the right to fight their case in the manner they wished. The law was on their side. "Considering all that our military troops do for the country" is an EMOTIONAL response. EVERY vote should have been counted, and ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out. Full stop.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

What I am detecting is a wish to perpetuate the false narrative that liberals hate the military. Look, Gore/Lieberman had the right to fight their case in the manner they wished. The law was on their side. "Considering all that our military troops do for the country" is an EMOTIONAL response. EVERY vote should have been counted, and ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out. Full stop.

Hate is a strong word. They're typically aloof about the military and outright heartless to our veterans.

What happened in Libya has been covered up so I can relate to the minority who claim liberals hate the military. If what happened in Benghazi is true it is without a doubt that they want our troops to die.

There's no other way to defend the rumors.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CheekyBird

What I am detecting is a wish to perpetuate the false narrative that liberals hate the military. Look, Gore/Lieberman had the right to fight their case in the manner they wished. The law was on their side. "Considering all that our military troops do for the country" is an EMOTIONAL response. EVERY vote should have been counted, and ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out. Full stop.

Gore and Lieberman wanted to do the exact opposite of what you are saying. They didn't want to throw out votes that violated established standards. The established standard in Florida was to count the votes by putting the ballots into the machines that count the votes. The machines count any ballot where the hole is punched for a candidate. When the vote is really close, there is an automatic recount. The recount is very simple. They put the ballots into the machines and the machines count the votes again. That was what was done in Florida in the 200 election. Bush won on election night, but the vote was very close so there was an automatic recount. Bush won the recount fair and square. So then Gore decided that he wanted to recount the ballots by hand and try to get ballots counted that the machines did not count. There is no legal justification to do that. The kind of ballots that were used are meant to be counted by machine, not by hand.

Do you remember watching the recount by hand? Do you remember how ridiculous it was? In many cases, after visually inspecting ballots, the people counting the votes did not agree on who a ballot was for. It's not suppose to be subjective. That is why we use machines. The machines are not biased. If you punched the hole (they used punch ballots that year in Florida) all the way through for Gore, the machine would count a vote for Gore. If you only partially punched it, or if if you also punched or partially a the hole for Bush, the ballot would obviously not count. You can't vote for both of them. If you voted for both, the ballot would obviously not count.

As you said, "Ballots that violated established standards for certification should have been thrown out." That is exactly right. And the machines only count ballots where one hole is punched all the way through, period. Yet Gore wanted to change the rules and count ballots by hand in counties where more people vote democrat. His rationale was that he wanted all the votes to be counted and he didn't want a ballot to be thrown out on a technicality (in most cases the technicality being that the hole wasn't punched all the way through, or another hole was also partially punched). You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we want all the votes to be counted. We do not want to disqualify ballots based on a technicality (the technicality being the machine not recognizing the vote based on a uniform standard of how the machines count votes). But on the other hand, we want to disqualify other ballots based on a technicality (that there was no postmark). That is complete hypocrisy.

[Pants II]

New Project Veritas video

Benjamin Barber is an academic lunatic. Must watch.

[Pants II]

All these elites like Barber do is divide and conquer.

He reminds me of a wannabe Soros.

Disgusting human being and his wife is equally as shameful.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Pants II

New Project Veritas video

Benjamin Barber is an academic lunatic. Must watch.

Despicable.