All we want is evidence. The pro "we lost for fraud" crowd has a lot of generalities (It's inconceivable that [insert perfectly conceivable thing here] could happen, so it must be fraud), but no actual evidence of fraud. But to believe this crowd, you have to believe that politicians gave up without a fight when the evidence was clear. That is a truly fantastic claim. Politicians are the most competitive people around. They sacrifice their lives to try to win an office, often spending more money than they will make. They take months off work, they pour their time, money, and effort into the endeavor. They hit up friends, aquaintances, and strangers for money to finance their run. They subject themselves and their family to humiliation. All this because they want more than anything to win election. And now, we are supposed to believe that these fanatically-driven candidates were ALL beaten by obvious and easily recognizable fraud, and instead of fighting on, they just gave up, either because they are chicken, or weak, or spineless, or lazy. To believe this, you must live in a fantasy world. To these people, Allen West is an aberration, the one candidate among all who was actually willing to fight. Well, I've got news for them -- West is the norm for politicians. And he conceded. There was a REAL PROBLEM in the one county, they screwed up their early counts. He got them to recount, it didn't help him, and he conceded. That is what EVERY politician who was in the same position would do. And yet in this fantasy world of the conspiracists, there are places where Obama got 108% of the registered vote, and yet the republican running for local office just gave up, and Romney just gave up. (Neglect for the moment why these people want to have in office people who would so easily give up a fight). Of course, there was no such "108% vote" -- it's just one of dozens of misreadings of data that get into the echo chamber and become the false doctrine of their religion. (there was a county where the total registration was 108% of the census-derived voting age population. There are many reasons for this, the prime being that Ohio is the worst state for getting their registration roles cleaned up. The 108% is in a county with a college, and thousands of college students have moved out and not reported this. But interestingly, in the county with 108% registration, the total vote was only 57% of registered voters, instead of the Ohio average 67% -- in other words, exactly what you'd expect if you have 15-18% invalid registrations). In fact, every specific example given that can be investigated turns up perfectly logical explanations. But mostly they don't give specific examples, just sweeping statements ("Look at all the precincts that voted 100% for Obama" -- as if they not only got fraudulent democrat votes, but also erased republican votes, and those republicans all are oblivious and don't tell anybody "hey, I voted and now it says I didn't. In fact, there are alway precincts that vote near or at 100% for democrats, they are called inner city slums and this is where the democrats have mined voters while republicans are afraid to set foot in the precincts). I've offered in multiple threads to research any specific claim of fraud, and instead of people taking up my offer, they call me names, and brag about how they refuse to read anything that doesn't match their perception. That's not intellectual honesty, that's the kind of mindless idiocy we expect from our opposition. I've talked about how we need to educate the electorate that conservative principles will be GOOD for them, but apparently we first need to educate our own conservative activists in the basic notion if intellectual rigor and logic. We are becoming as stupid as the left pretends we are. And it makes our job that much harder, because each rediculous and easily refuted claim allows the media to ignore another real case of fraud. I don't think people on our side can fathom how badly the whole birther movement hurt us with the people we needed to leave Obama and vote for Romney. And the "voter fraud" sounds as much like sour grapes as "Sore/Loserman".
I can’t read that without paragraphs.
I can’t read pabulum that refutes nothing. There have been countless articles documenting voter fraud. You have proved nothing at all, and I gleaned that after reading a few sentences, before my eyes refused to read the wall of text.
The birther movement is partly engineered by charlatans (like the obvious inflitrator Polarik) and partly people who demonstrate a tendency to ignore some obvious facts. The election fraud issue is a little too new to be evaluated for its impact on the masses but there are many glaring errors in the lists of links that will be used as clear examples of people who are too busy grasping at straws to do even rudimentary fact checking. The question is whether such low quality content matters or not. Certainly it does not matter to you and I other than being constantly irritating. But does it discredit conservatism? I think that ultimately it discredits the fakes like Polarik, although it can be a slow process.