You read only what you want to "hear", Phil. ACORN also pressured some of our esteemed Congressmen and women into supporting Fannie and Freddie's handing out loans to people that had no intention of paying them. Yessir, ACORN is one fine organization.
Yes, it does, because the whole point of your argument in previous polls was that it was the Democrats (and only the Democrats) that the dead have been voting for.The article itself mentioned that there is no evidence that there is a concerted effort at fraud taking place. If there was a concerted effort, there would be more than the two incidents they mentioned here. (plus possibly a "some" more (they have not said how much a few is, but by definition some is "not many", not enough to support your theory that there is a concerted effort at fraud.
yes, 23,000 people who were possibly dead were registered to vote (they probably registered while still alive, not knowing that they would die, I mean people do die unexpectedly) 23,000 possible felons, and 2,000 duplicates. But people die after registering to vote all the time. And some people register to vote more than once, in a state of 23 million people, 2000 is not many. And how many people were caught voting while ineligible? Two were named. And they said "some" voted. Is this "some" a small "some" or a large "some"? I expect it would have been a small "some" because if it was hundreds, they would have, for the sake of sensationalism, said "hundreds" instead of "some". They know who the ineligible people are, they can tick them off the voting rolls, matching names. If they can only find two ineligible people (they said "some" who actually voted, but named only two) then it is far more likely that it is not a well organised highly coordinated effort to fraudulently elect somebody. If there had been a well organised highly coordinated effort, there would have been thousands of fraudulent votes, not "some".-And it is not even mentioned which primary the woman in question voted for. It could have been a republican primary for all you know.
as the article says, quote "We've never had any evidence there's a concerted attempt at fraud," There was one dead voter that was recorded as having voted. Had there been more, a simple check against death records would have lead to more being found. This looks like a case of a poll worker simply crossing the wrong name off the list.
i even have 2 more links to voter fraud concerning ACORN....links not already listed...
You read only what you want to "hear", Phil. ACORN also pressured some of our esteemed Congressmen and women into supporting Fannie and Freddie's handing out loans to people that had no intention of paying them. Yessir, ACORN is one fine organization.
Yes, it does, because the whole point of your argument in previous polls was that it was the Democrats (and only the Democrats) that the dead have been voting for.The article itself mentioned that there is no evidence that there is a concerted effort at fraud taking place. If there was a concerted effort, there would be more than the two incidents they mentioned here. (plus possibly a "some" more (they have not said how much a few is, but by definition some is "not many", not enough to support your theory that there is a concerted effort at fraud.
LOL! We're nothing but a bunch of heathens. EXCELLENT poll.
sick ain't it *-p
Typical right winger... you want to give rights to people who aren't born yet, but deny rights to dead people ;)
it doesn't matter what primary....
yes, 23,000 people who were possibly dead were registered to vote (they probably registered while still alive, not knowing that they would die, I mean people do die unexpectedly) 23,000 possible felons, and 2,000 duplicates. But people die after registering to vote all the time. And some people register to vote more than once, in a state of 23 million people, 2000 is not many. And how many people were caught voting while ineligible? Two were named. And they said "some" voted. Is this "some" a small "some" or a large "some"? I expect it would have been a small "some" because if it was hundreds, they would have, for the sake of sensationalism, said "hundreds" instead of "some". They know who the ineligible people are, they can tick them off the voting rolls, matching names. If they can only find two ineligible people (they said "some" who actually voted, but named only two) then it is far more likely that it is not a well organised highly coordinated effort to fraudulently elect somebody. If there had been a well organised highly coordinated effort, there would have been thousands of fraudulent votes, not "some".-And it is not even mentioned which primary the woman in question voted for. It could have been a republican primary for all you know.
i can see you did not read the entire thing....there was more than one...
as the article says, quote "We've never had any evidence there's a concerted attempt at fraud," There was one dead voter that was recorded as having voted. Had there been more, a simple check against death records would have lead to more being found. This looks like a case of a poll worker simply crossing the wrong name off the list.