Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Politicalities

Ok, since it appears you have no clue what you are talking about, let me ask you something in all seriousness:

At the close of the polls (7 weeks ago), part of the election day process is to take the machines apart one by one, and members of BOTH parties verify that there are no ballots at all stuffed anywhere in or around the machines - including in the side pockets, underneath them inside them. Every nook and cranny is checked and verified.

7 weeks ago, those ballots were not there. Period.

Deal with it.


29 posted on 12/16/2004 12:11:47 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Go Ahead. Mace just makes me even more excited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Chad Fairbanks

I would call that evidence of an irregularity. But that's just me.


36 posted on 12/16/2004 12:14:13 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Wannabe Princess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Chad Fairbanks

Ok, since it appears you have no clue what you are talking about, let me ask you something in all seriousness:

At the close of the polls (7 weeks ago), part of the election day process is to take the machines apart one by one, and members of BOTH parties verify that there are no ballots at all stuffed anywhere in or around the machines - including in the side pockets, underneath them inside them. Every nook and cranny is checked and verified.

7 weeks ago, those ballots were not there. Period.

Deal with it.

Uh, sorry, you said you were going to ask me something "in all seriousness". I don't see the question.

The 22 new ballots are more suspicious and are deserving of greater scrutiny than the 500+ absentees. By all accounts those absentees may well be valid and may have been disqualified purely in error. How can you say they shouldn't be counted? Ask yourself honestly, if absentee ballots in a heavily-Republican county were disallowed because of an error by the tabulators, would you be insisting as strongly they shouldn't be counted?

48 posted on 12/16/2004 12:21:12 PM PST by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Chad Fairbanks

Exactly. Remember 2000 and a box of votes was found the night of the election in New Mexico. The republican worker who found it and it turned the election in Gore's favor. The Republican party did not contest them because they were found the day of the election and not 7 weeks later. That's a big difference and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Nice touch throwing a known politicians name in the mix. I'd be checking the records to make sure there isn't a second voting record with his name on it.


101 posted on 12/16/2004 12:57:55 PM PST by MadAnthony1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Chad Fairbanks
"I get to vote, I did it right, and it gets to count," said King County Councilman Larry Phillips, whose ballot was among the 573 mistakenly rejected by election workers.

Demo-rat logic...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --

At the close of the polls (7 weeks ago), part of the election day process is to take the machines apart one by one, and members of BOTH parties verify that there are no ballots at all stuffed anywhere in or around the machines - including in the side pockets, underneath them inside them. Every nook and cranny is checked and verified.

7 weeks ago, those ballots were not there. Period.

AMAZING logic...

234 posted on 12/17/2004 5:42:34 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson