Election fraud in North Carolina

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Question: if Trump and Pence get pushed out of office, would that make Pelosi President?

Yeah if they were both ousted simultaneously. I wouldn't get your hopes up on that though.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

What's fun for me is I know the world inside their heads better than they do in many ways

Yeah? Were you like...

[Jumbo]

that's exactly what i looked like

 

ok, maybe more like this

 

 

[mistertim]

Jumbo walks into a thread. 

 

5 minutes later.

 

[Jumbo]

It's Saturday night! We're partying here---a foul lot. My kind of people. 

[Chachie]

This is the new republican standard: Cheat while claiming the other side is cheating. If they are crying wolf, they are busy circling prey.

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 hours ago, mistertim said:

  I was actually wondering how long it would take for people on the right to use this as a pretext to scream that they were right, and that vote fraud DOES actually exist in an organized way...even though this time where we finally might have been able to find it, it was them. 

If demonstrated that the Republicans did commit voter fraud, you can bet your ass that the GOPers will scream about voter fraud to push for more of their disenfranchisement and supression of minority and Democrat voters. 

Oddly enough it seems that every time we see voter fraud in this country it is by white Republicans.

[mistertim]

18 minutes ago, Chachie said:

This is the new republican standard: Cheat while claiming the other side is cheating. If they are crying wolf, they are busy circling prey.

 

Reminds me a bit of the "you said that <x> was a racist, therefore you're the racist by saying that." logic.

 

 

I remember when Jon Stewart reacted to that. "Did you just 'he who smelt it dealt it'...with racism?"

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

and in fairness to kilmer, for the last couple months on a number of topics he's actually been operating at pretty good level, making solid points,  even "showing the libs" something of substance every now and then, amazingly enough 

 

There has been a few times I have found myself to the right of @Kilmer17 on topics.  Kinda scary.

[Larry]

Something I've been wondering about, this topic. I'm curious about the chronology, here. 

 

For example, looking at the article in the OP, it looks like 538 was calling the election over, and when the state refused to certify, then they dug, and found the evidence cited. 

 

Did the state find this evidence, and do what looks like the right thing, without being pressured into it by a media who uncovered the evidence?  To me, if that's the case, then I'm willing to at least contemplate revising my opinion of some Republican politicians. (And in a state which I consider to be one of the competitors for most openly partisan states in the US). 

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

There has been a few times I have found myself to the right of @Kilmer17 on topics.  Kinda scary.

 

 

I'll make this the last from me so it's not a big derail off the topic, but my acerbic humor in assessing such forum hijinks aside, just going by what's he's typed here for well over a decade, kilmer hasn't manifested very often as way-right. He does indeed show more scattered flexibility and nuance to his views that would include some basic libertarian takes and a lot of moderate conservative takes, as well as some that dems would find close to their positions.

 

His main deal isn't being hard right at all as much as just doing his shtick of "needing" to enlighten the libs---sometimes with what he seems to think of as "snares" he lays out and when the bait is taken in his mind (i.e. the libs react as he figured/hoped) he gets to enjoy his payoff of chastising/insulting/scolding them (degree of treatment depending on his mood that time).

 

He's robustly dedicated to making them very aware of all their flaws, especially hypocrisy since it's so exclusively vibrant in the left (cough). I have no less than two dozen posts by kilmer over a decade-plus span (including recently) where he flat-out openly admits trolling  , sometimes even using that exact word. A mod of the old guard started it. 

 

But he's got a lot of soft side (caring/compassionate) and is too reasonable (doesn't show when he's into his dance) to be a hardcore rigthy-tighty. Also wouldn't meet the bigot/racist requirements. It's also fun talking about him like he's not here.   We love you kilmer. Of course, we all know love hurts.   You're way more fun and worthy than many another, past and present, who have "joined' the community to mainly wax their politics.

 

(I am thinking of doing a thread on "community" in our context).

 

End of OT stuff from me.

[@DCGoldPants]

 

[No Excuses]

 

 

 

[Larry]

Question for the audience:  What kind of evidence would you consider credible, at this stage?  

 

For example - Lets say that, say, NPR finds someone who they can name, by name and address, who says he requested a vote by mail ballot, (and the record says he did), and who says somebody knocked on his door, claimed to be with the elections office, and the voter handed his ballot to this person. (Maybe the record says the voter voted. Maybe it says his ballot never arrived). Voter says he voted Dem, and is registered Dem. 

 

Do you believe this person?  I mean, he's a real person. The record says he requested a vote by mail ballot. And it says he did or didn't actually vote. 

 

Suppose they find 30 voters who say the same thing. Credible?  

 

Suppose somebody (NPR, League of Women Voters, the FBI) gets a list of every person whose vote was counted, goes to every single one of them, asks them who they voted for, and gets a result which is vastly different from the official count?  Is that credible?

 

Or now, weeks after the election, is it impossible to believe any claim of voter fraud, from any actual voter?  

[Jumbo]

I stand by my shirt that says "Everyone is lying but it doesn't matter because no one is really listening"

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

There has been a few times I have found myself to the right of @Kilmer17 on topics.  Kinda scary.

There’s nothing wrong with being on the right. It’s possible to be intelligent, reasonable, and truly believe that your philosophy will help people on either side. It’s also possible to be a doofus on either side.

[Jumbo]

Doofus.

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

There’s nothing wrong with being on the right. It’s possible to be intelligent, reasonable, and truly believe that your philosophy will help people on either side. It’s also possible to be a doofus on either side.

I have ZERO issue with someone being a Conservative, just don’t BS me by telling me that the GOP is for Conservatives.

[Fresh8686]

There has been way too much unchecked white collar crime in this country and that criminality has been especially escalating in the arena of politics. Hopefully, the response to this surge (legislation/enforcement structures and task forces), once (or if) the criminal elements get rooted out, will make our country stronger.

Eventually, there will need to be a global struggle of democracy vs kleptocracy/oligarchy.

[Larry]

Perhaps another topic worthy of discussion. 

 

How much information about voting ought to be public?

 

This election, I chose to vote by mail. (Kinda). I work health care. My employer has been changing my work schedule every 2-3 days. I had no way of knowing if I was going to be working 7:30-7:30, Election Day. So I went to the Supervisor of Elections web site and asked them to mail me a ballot. 

 

The web site wanted, IIR, my last name, birth date, email, and phone number. 

 

I apparently failed to notice notice that the phone number and email fields did not have an asterisk after them, designating them as required. I filled out all of them. 

 

During the month prior to the election, I must have received 25 unsolicited text messages on my cell phone. Some from (or claimed to be from) the Dem party. Some from my county sheriff (running for reelection). Some simply with some vague, dire, warning about some issue, with a link to click. 

 

All of of them from, near as I can tell, spoofed caller ID numbers. (At least Google searches on the phone number turned up nothing. Not even people complaining about spam texts). 

 

Many of of them were aware that I was voting by mail, and that my ballot had not yet been received in the election office. (I actually wound up not mailing the thing back, and voting in person). 

 

I check. And apparently, under Florida law, virtually all voting information is public information. 

 

Needless to say, I'm really pissed about my elections office demanding that I must give them my personal information, and then handing it out to any telemarketer who wants it, 

 

OTOH, I think this case highlights a counter-point. It seems to me that about the only effective check on the kinds of organized fraud that appears to have happened here is a public investigation by the press. I'm not sure that any private investigation by government agencies will be trusted. 

 

So, how much information about things like voter registration, who voted, where, party affiliation, should be public?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

How much information about voting ought to be public?

So, how much information about things like voter registration, who voted, where, party affiliation, should be public?

 

Zero, it's not anyone's ****ing business imo.  And the party one is registered with should not be allowed to send anyone mail encouraging them to vote or telling them how ****ty their voting history is.  I got a couple of letters from them bashing me for not voting in a primary before. 

 

All that information should be protected just like one's medical info/history (e.g. HIPAA) and only known if the individual wants it to be known.  Just went to the Florida board of elections website and at least on the voter look-up there is this statement:  This website is intended for use by a registered voter to determine his or her voter registration and voting status. Access or attempted access by someone other than the voter to his or her own information that is exempt from public disclosure may subject the user to criminal prosecution or civil liability. 

 

On the NC board of elections website there is nothing like that and you only have to know the persons first and last name to pull up their voting info (districts, local polling station, party affiliation, which elections they have voted in in the past).  Sure, they don't have access to who I voted for, but I still don't think it should be that easy.

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Zero, it's not anyone's ****ing business imo. 

 

I can sympathize with that viewpoint. 

 

Just be be aware that a policy like that also makes it impossible for people like the media to monitor for these kind of things. 

[Dan T.]

I happened to be in Kilmer17's neighborhood in November during the election.

 

Here he is on his way from the voting station:

 

But then a weird thing happened.  He went to his car, then came out looking like this:

 

 

He looked around to see if anyone was looking, then headed back into the voting station.

 

[nonniey]

On 12/1/2018 at 3:19 PM, mistertim said:

 

I wasn't necessarily saying you had claimed voter fraud was only perpetrated by Dems (I'm not going to comb through every post you've made in the tailgate, so I'll take your word for it). However, can you think of a single time the right has screamed and claimed voter fraud when it was anyone BUT Dems who were ostensibly on the perpetrating end of the charge? It's also not hard to notice that all of the initiatives, bills, and measures Republicans have introduced/passed/called for have just happened to almost universally be targeted at traditionally Dem voting blocs.

 

I have this feeling that Republicans and Trump won't suddenly be yelling about how this possible fraud must be investigated. 

I was under the assumption that it was Republicans that are largely responsible for this investigation. Was that assumption wrong?

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I was under the assumption that it was Republicans that are largely responsible for this investigation. Was that assumption wrong?

Pretty sure it is. The board that certifies is made up of 4Rs, 4Ds and an unaffiliated member. And they voted 9-0 not to certify this possible sham.

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I was under the assumption that it was Republicans that are largely responsible for this investigation. Was that assumption wrong?

 

I'm not sure who originally started an investigation, but apparently it was prompted by lots of complaints from voters about their absentee ballots and seemingly shady goings on with them and then they checked and uncovered the inconsistencies in the numbers, and here we are. As far as Republicans, the major surprise there was that all 4 of them on the state Board of Elections (it has 4 Rs, 4 Ds, and 1 I) voted to not certify the win by the Republican. 

 

However, from what I've read the Republican party in general (including Harris himself) is pushing for the Board to certify the results anyway.

 

I was shocked that all of the Rs voted to not certify. I'm guessing that as a bloc they met and decided it would be a really bad look.