What Luck! Obama Won Dozens of Cleveland Districts with 100% of the Vote

I said: You have to understand point of view

You claim I said: So, we have to change our point point of view and beliefs

Those two things are not the same. Until you can figure that out, I'm not sure how we can have a rational discussion.

And if you can't understand something without becoming it, you have a bigger problem than just comprehension.

I really thought the language analogy would be understandable to you. Now I'm not sure what other analogy might clarify this basic concept.

who aren’t going to understand our conservative principles anyway?

There are people who won't understand. But Ronald Reagan understood that, if you could educate people, many of them would both understand, and embrace, conservative principles. I assume YOU embrace and understand conservative principles. I also assume that you are not a genius.

So, if you can understand and embrace conservative principles, don't you think other people can do the same? How did you learn conservative principles -- were you not taught them, did you not read, hear, and come to an understanding? I assume you believe in conservative principles because you have thought them through and found them compelling.

I believe that there are a majority of people who, if we can teach them, will understand that the principles we espouse are good for the country, and good for them, and will embrace them.

If you think that we can't convert anybody else to our cause, why are you even bothering to post? What do you hope to accomplish politically, if you don't think we can convince people to embrace conservatism?

I'm not ready to give up. I hope, despite your pessimistic comments, that you are not either.

Be prepared to hear all about lots of “voters staying home”...the Bipartisan Oligarchy would rather we all stew in that mess..than having us all bothered, and deciding to investigate, about all the voters voting who never voted...

Listening to descriptions of how “Democrats got out their ground game” with “superior ability to bring those to the polls who normally would never go” by the commentators on Fox election night..made me realize..what they actually have done is track names that HAVE NOT VOTED IN MANY, MANY elections cycles....and vote them.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/23/No-Car-Finds-2-214-Registered-Voters-110-Years-of-Age-Older

A well-funded project, county-by-county..to examine the names signed in at at the polls..and going out to find those individuals..you’ll find they were never physically at he polls..or they themselves never filled out the absentee ballot....or their names in the death registers.

The very LAST thing the Bipartisan Oligarchy want or need is any semblance of Constitutional Federal Gov’mt or a clean vote.

Both those are up to We the People to cram it down their throats so hard in DC they will, someday, never do otherwise.

Absent a clean vote.....We the People are being taxed without representation..Ask George III how well that worked out!

The election was rigged. It is plain to anyone who goes over those returns precinct by precinct.

There are several problems with this argument:

it is not plain to "anyone". Most people have not bought into this conspiracy/rigging argument yet.
A comparison of these precincts to prior elections shows the same disparity of results. One could argue that they have been rigged for multiple elections, but there is nothing unique about this election.
The assumption that any person who takes the time and effort to run for political office would then completely ignore obvious fraud in their own loss is ludicrous. Would YOU accept such a result? Do you know ANYBODY personally who would accept such a result? If not, why do you assume that a highly motivated politician would roll over and play dead? And then there are the percentages not adding up, too.
Don't know which race you are trying to add percentages; there have been so many misunderstood reports (like the "141% of ballots" which turned out to be a "2 ballots per voter" count), that you have to be more specific. But again, the thought that a person who runs for office would ignore an obvious counting error is ludicrous.
Even after several read-throughs, I don’t know whose side you are on.
My post wasn't about "sides", it was about taking a sober, intelligent, and non-conspiratorial view of the election. I would HOPE that everybody would be on that "side". If you were looking for an argument, I'm not surprised you couldn't find it in my post.
Even rinos know not to refer to conservatives in that derisive tone.
I don't believe in political correctness. Most conservatives don't. I say what I mean, and I don't worry too much about how it sounds to people who are looking to read things emotionally.
But I didn't shoot for derisive; I was pointing out a common characteristic of people in general, and conservatives in this case in particular. People tend to evaluate things from their own personal point of view, and assume that others will see things like we do.
To give a different example, conservatives were sure that Benghazi would be a big deal, and were upset that Romney didn't raise it. But if you look at the exit polls, and see the comments of people who voted for Obama, you'll find that they could care less about Benghazi.
That should be clear to us -- watch the "Obamaphone Lady" video, and ask yourself -- would that woman care about Benghazi? That is what an Obama voter looks like.
Worse, Obama targeted a large population of people who could care less about politics (as you may now, half of eligible voters don't even register to vote). You have 100 million people in that pool, and if you can get 2% of them to care about SOMETHING (like, say, free birth control), and then get them registered and drag them to the booth, you have a huge turnout advantage.
They polled I believe Princeton professors, and found they supported Obama 155 to 2. Suppose there was a "princeton professor precinct". If one of the two Romney supporters didn't show up, you'd have a 155 to 1 turnout. That wouldn't indicate fraud, it would indicate reality.

For an example:

In 2008, there were 16 precincts in Cleveland, and 2 more in “east cleveland”, where John McCain got exactly 0 votes.

There were 42 precincts in Ohio where he got 1 vote.
There were 60 precincts in Ohio where he got 2 votes.
There were 54 precincts in Ohio where he got 3 votes.

In all, there were 394 precincts where McCain got 10 or fewer votes.

There were almost NO precincts where there were actual votes where Obama did that poorly.

IN case you were wondering, in 2004, where there was no black candidate to vote for, there were 10 precincts where George Bush got 0 votes, and 144 where he got 10 or less votes.

In 2004, there were a total of 4 precincts that had more than 20 registered voters, and where the democratic candidate got 10 or fewer votes.

So it is clear that, whether we like it or not, there are many places in Ohio where our republican candidates get almost no votes, and that has been the case for the past 3 elections.

If there is fraud that causes this, that fraud has been going on for a long time.

On the other hand, I have no problem believing that there is a precinct made up of a tenement complex where every person in that complex would vote for Barack Obama, and none would vote for Mitt Romney.

I say that because I can imagine walking up to a crowd of blacks, and not finding a single one who would vote for a white guy over a black democrat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.