Posted on 02/11/2017 9:00:08 PM PST by montag813
Good luck with that.
“it’s going to open up speculation and folks are going to find dozens like her over the next year.”
Dozens? Hopefully tens of thousands if not millions.
Trying to keep things factually sound around here can be a lonely task - particularly when it cuts against the narrative of the day. It is nice to run into a fellow traveler from time to time. Hat tip to you, my friend.
This is just one kind of blatant voter fraud that has been going on for years. My husband used to work with someone who was in the LGBT community who would brag that she and her friends voted 5 or 6 times every election cycle. It’s good to see that someone has been made an example of. This should deter this kind of fraud at least in Texas in the future.
We have said for years that the words “ground game” used by the Democrats is code for voter fraud. When they say that they have a good “ground game” in a given area, that really means that they have mechanisms in place to acquire as many fraudulent votes that they need to put their candidate over the top. They check the polls to see how much cheating is needed and then get the illegal, and dead votes necessary.
We believe that the only reason the President won this time is because people lied to the pollsters and they didn’t know how many extra votes they would be needing. On election night the media was wailing, “at this time the DNC is desperately calling all the districts”. Well, why were they desperately calling all the districts on election day? To see how many extra votes they could get away with stuffing into ballot boxes is truly the only answer we could come up with.
We believe that Trump must have had a real landslide. I truly hope that they will be able to uncover and show proof of the massive voter fraud that is out there and be able to do something about it before the mid terms.
One simple thing that they could do in the meantime would be to simply include each voters date of birth on the books that are signed before voting. That way, if someone who is there to vote was born in 1921, and the voter looks to be in his 20’s, 30’s, or 40’s, the poll watcher could easily determine that this isn’t the correct voter. Easy first step. What line of BS could they come up with against this minor change?
okbye !
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.