Posted on 11/16/2012 8:43:43 PM PST by chrisnj
Why GOP won't challenge Voter Fraud.
The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud. ......... more in the link
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/
(Excerpt) Read more at fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com ...
I think that the link to a ruling is better than an article.
Okay, after reading the essay I am left saying that a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present. IF Pribus said the court case prevented challenging this election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s butt. The Bush v Gore case should be a clue ...
“I think this is a bunch of BS. Kennedy stood Nixon’s victory and didn’t protest, it would be unseemly”
You are off topic. This article is about why the Pub party doesn’t challenge voters before they vote, not why they don’t challenge after the elections. It sounds a bit farfetched, but stands to reason. A white poll watcher sneezing in a district with more than a couple black people can be accused of suppressing the franchise of minorities easily enough for federal judges to buy it.
“it has vague generalities to keep from getting tripped up in the pesky reality of details.”
To be fair the article cites a specific court case and the binding consent decree by which it was supposedly settled. It even showed a picture of the judge who shot down revision of the agreement. So it’s not as if he’s alleging a private handshake over cigars and brandy in some gentleman’s club.
You obviously didn’t read the article, and as such should be informed about whether or not the parties would walk away from close tallied with hard evidence of fraud. It’s about challenging voters beforehand, not challengning results after the polls close.
“IF Privies said the court case prevented challenging thus election, he is blowing smoke up someone’s Burt. The Bush v Tire case should be a clue”
This article is about challenging voters before they vote, not challenging results, forcing recounts until you get a number you like, or squabbling over intent.
“a lawsuit bake then cannot make law for the present”
Consent decrees are binding. I don’t know if they last forever, but it’s the same two parties and if the agreement is still valid, or ever operated how thus article asserts in the first place, then old lawsuits can make laws for the present.
I say a big BS. I say that the GOP are not bound by a consent decree 31 years ago if there is even such a thing. That is all baloney. Give it up.
This was my interest in the all voting-by-mail of WA and OR. The objections I've read mostly fixate on lost ballots or who is actually doing the voting, but my concern was of a comprehensive government database of who votes for whom.
Not that they would formulate a priority code for obamacare or IRS audits or building permits or traffic tickets or no knock raids or anything like that.
And I think that individual candidates should view this ruling for exactly what it is...an absurdity that defies common sense.
Ronald Kaufman?
Would that be the same Republican political consultant Ron Kaufman who was on Romney’s team? (Long-time MA political operative).
Sorry I don’t know some of you don’t like to read at the links.
I thought I would save this website band-width by not posting the entire article.
So some of you think the reason the losers don’t challenge voter fraud is because they believe they have lost by looking at the numbers.
That could be so.
Unfortunately the numbers this year tell a different story - it tells of rampant voter fraud, at least at the battleground states.
We don’t know why there are so few challenges from the GOP losers.
But now we know why the RNC is so silent!
Could it be it hurts so much that we would rather deny it - call it conspiracy, unbelievable, ‘so-what?’....
We will never right the wrong if we don’t fight.
First we have to face the reality - the obama culture is a fertile ground for voter fraud.
We all find it unbelievable that the GOP losers just take it so silently.
There must be reasons - brutal lamestream media attacks, no support for them from their own party, no money, exhaustion, too afraid to be labelled ‘sore-losers’....
You have the right to doubt this.
Don’t you owe it to yourself to check it out and evaluate if something can be done about this?
So what your saying is........ only a moron would vote?......
Even if the story is true, I don’t know why independent groups couldn’t bring up accusations of vote fraud.
Surely at least mailing post cards to voters’ addresses is allowed?
!
IF that court case was binding, why is it not cited to stop voter ID requirements when they are raised by a state when Republicants are in control? In Tennessee, I have to show my photo ID and sign a book every time I go to vote before they will escort me to a machine. It has not always been that way, and in fact I think the changes to the present system are post 1987.
Yes, and how many secretaries of state are democrats who, with the push of a button, can easily tweek results. I don’t trust any of them! A bunch of crooks and cronies. Our country has gone to the dogs.
By flipping votes cast for Romney, and cancelling votes cast for Romney, and voting Dead people ballots for Obama, the numbers you posted for the particular states can be cut to half that many fraudulent votes cast to overcome the Romney trunout and democrap reduced turnout..
“The article is inaccurate. The Consent Agreement between the RNC and the DNC is that neither can Monitor Poll stations MEANING they cannot send/be poll watchers. The Candidate’s Campaign or a 3rd Party CAN send poll watchers.
I spoke with the GOP Legal Department on this item specifically – so PLEASE – call them yourselves (the legal department) AND clean up the propaganda as we do NOT want to be like the Left. REMEMBER we are the party of FACTS.”
http://gulagbound.com/36046/no-joke-the-gop-can-not-legally-help-stop-vote-fraud/
Because the RNC is not the State that enacted the law such a binding agreement is not applicable -- IOW, it would be like you arguing that because Golden Corral gives food to veterans on Veteran's Day that the bank should give money to veterans on Veteran's Day.
I said I didn’t read the blog. If there is an article, someone should actually post a link to the article in a thread. This is a thread pimping a blog post, which is clear because it’s a bloggers entry, and the blog is excerpted.
I don’t excerpt my comments, because i want people to read them. If someone wants us to read their words, they should post them here.
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.