'Hillary C. does not have respect for our people'

Triple
so you are saying people would go to the trouble of fraud at a caucus but not a general election?
that they would care enough to commit fraud at a caucus but not at an election where the candidate they frauded for might need their fake votes even more?
if I went to the trouble of using a false name to appear at a public caucus I would make sure the candidate I supported got my fake vote in the real election as well.


This is from the NY TImes on requiring voter id
" Democrats charge that the true purpose of the laws is to deter participation by some predictably Democratic voters, particularly poor people and members of minority groups "

but now Dems in Nev say it ok when it suits their purpose.
This is not apples and oranges, this is requiring voter Id when it suits
Or are Dems ok with disenfranchsing voters when it fits their agenda
 
Triple
You posted, "It's not fraud if it's an open caucus or primary"
If it is so open why did the Dems require ID?

Dems in Nev required photo ID to attend their caucus. Why Triple why did they do this?
If someone named Jim Jones walked up to attend the Dem cacus and said he was Ralph Smith what is that called?

Merriim-Webster online dictionary
Fraud:
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be.

I doubt even the Dems would have hauled any fakers into court.

keep trying tho'
those apples and oranges should be ripe soon
 
we have been over this before. Let me remind you that the mailings the Rs sent out merely uncovered voter registration fraud which occurred in Democrat stronghold precincts. So, looks like voter fraud and intimidation has reached epidemic levels in the Democrat party. Even Bill Clinton is getting upset about it.

So, yes, "voter caging", at least your uninformed definition of the word, is a myth.

And that bill has about as much chance of becoming law as I do of banging Giselle. Not even Conyers uses the term "caging" properly in writing his own bill.
 
6721 - Fraud in the legal sense of the word.

Before you run your mouth any more, I'd ask that you clarify whether ID was requested at all Nevada caucus locations or just the ones on the strip.

Nevada Democrats can set their own rules for a caucus. It isn't a government-run election.

How bout them apples, 6721 ?

austex - Re:
In reply to:


 
45st. - caucuses are screwy, for several of the reasons you describe. They are not overseen by the government.


6721 - Fraud in the legal sense of the word.

Before you run your mouth any more, I'd ask that you clarify whether ID was requested at all Nevada caucus locations or just the ones on the strip.

Nevada Democrats can set their own rules for a caucus. It isn't a government-run election.

How bout them apples, 6721 ?

austex - Re:
In reply to:


 
Predictable response.
Do you know the difference between voter fraud and voter registration
fraud? Doesn't appear so.

You clearly didn't even click on the 1st link. You can spend a weekend reading all of the evidence of registration fraud.

EDIT:
Just read your last sentence you edited. You really do live in an alternate reality.
 
triple
you MUST be a lawyer. You dance all around the issue but never get to the basic issue. Dems requiring ID for ANY process is requiring ID for any process

you posted "Nevada Democrats can set their own rules for a caucus. It isn't a government-run election.
so YOU are saying it is fine for Nev Dems to set their own rules since we all should know that this is an isolated case.

Demorocrats really don't believe in requiring ID to participate in our democratic process since Dems know only GOP would want to prevent fraud from anyone participating in our wonderful process.
WELL except when Dems want to prevent anyone from participating fraudently in a process.

Triple
I would like you on my speed dial in the event I ever need a really good attorney
and I mean that in all sincerity. I am impressed
of course the apples and oranges have rotted while you parse
bow.gif
 
Back
Top