The 6 voter records that were released were the only ones released by the South Carolina Election Commission when the status of the original 950 was questioned.

In short, those in SC making the case for the 950 dead voters released absolutely no evidence substantiating their original claim. In fact, the names released disproved the original contention.

This is one more example of headline grabbing "voter fraud news" that was, once again, proven to be a big zero.

Yep, Al Sharpton was running these numbers.

This is one more example of headline grabbing "voter fraud news" that was, once again, proven to be a big zero.

Deflection in ....3....2....1...

Deflection in ....3....2....1...

Why are you counting down for something you already did?

Are you naturally stupid, JPW, or do you actually have to werk at it? I didn't deflect shit, dumbass...I merely linked (a HuffPo piece, even) to prime example of Democrat voter fraud which Yav (apparently) seems to think is non-existant.

You've conflated two entirely different examples of fraud - one election fraud and the other voter fraud. The fact remains, the SC GOP lied again and exaggerated to make the case for photo ID - and came up with a big zero.

Your obfuscation was ineffective.

two entirely different examples of fraud - one election fraud and the other voter fraud.

They're one and the same, bud..fraud is fraud.

"make the case for photo ID"

The fact that you have to have a photo ID for damned near everything you do anymore should make the case by itself. Why do liberals want to stop elections from being as legal as possible? They don't want to stop ID'ing for beer, cigs, etc, so why do you guys bitch about ID for voting?

Your obfuscation was ineffective.

If mine was ineffective, then yours not only fell on it's face, but simultaneously kicked itself in it's ass.

0 for 950 ...
lol, no surprise there folks ..it was a REPUBLICAN primary
~ the dead people, felons, & illegals vote later ..

"The fact that you have to have a photo ID for damned near everything you do anymore should make the case by itself. "

1/3rd of the occupants in my house haven't had a valid state-issued ID in over a decade.

Some case.

The fact that you have to have a photo ID for damned near everything you do anymore should make the case by itself. Why do liberals want to stop elections from being as legal as possible? They don't want to stop ID'ing for beer, cigs, etc, so why do you guys bitch about ID for voting?

Think more in terms, of - do you need an ID to have free speech?

Democrats will do anything to make sure voters do not have to show ID to vote. We all know why because it will make it harder for them to commit voter fraud. Why are democrats not decrying all the other things in life that require a photo ID? Here are just a few.

Drive a car
Get a mortgage
Rent an apartment
Get alcohol
Get in a nightclub
Cash a check
Get foodstamps
Fly on an airplane
Get a marriage license
Take a test drive

1/3rd of the occupants in my house haven't had a valid state-issued ID in over a decade.
Some case.
#10 | Posted by Danforth

This story smelled of bullshit as it left the paddock, and a number of posters here pointed out the inherent weaknesses in the material offered. But, no, ideology trumps knowledge and common sense, so the loons who see voter fraud as one of those demons lurking in the darkness beneath their beds yammered on and on and on about it. And what do we end up with? No there there.

But that won't convince them. Now it'll become part of a the Deep Conspiracy.

More foolishness.

"0 for 950"

Did I miss something? I read the article and I got "0 for 6" out of it. Why did the AG office only release 6 of the 950 names? Seems like an appalling low number, unless the AG office had already investigated those 6 and knew what they were giving the election commission.

As I recall an earlier posting on the subject, there was never really a firm figure of 950. It might've been higher, might've been lower. Now it's zip.

#8 | Posted by American1st

What a retard.

An ID card would've had absolutely zero bearing on the example you provided.

.

Well, as long as six of the nine-hundred fifty dead voters weren't actually dead, that means none of them were dead. Right libtards?

It means there's no there there, until someone comes up with it - which they haven't.

Drive a car
Get a mortgage
Rent an apartment
Get alcohol
Get in a nightclub
Cash a check
Get foodstamps
Fly on an airplane
Get a marriage license
Take a test drive
#12 | POSTED BY DNMXT AT 2012-01-31 02:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

None of those are constitutional rights dimwit.

Well, as long as six of the nine-hundred fifty dead voters weren't actually dead, that means none of them were dead.

Let's see - one of the 6 died between submitting his absentee ballot and it being counted, so your point is wrong right off the bat. Then we have the problem of the 950 being touted as some kind of "proof" and when pressed for the actual data, SCEC provided only 6 names, none of which substantiated the original claim.

One would think that they'd have bothered to put forth the best case to support their claim. Instead all they did was demonstrate the original claim was pure hyperbole with absolutely nothing to back it up.

One would think that they'd have bothered to put forth the best case to support their claim

So the fact that a partisan picked the six names to look at suddenly makes 6/950 a valid sample size?

Get a fucking grip.

None of those are constitutional rights dimwit.

#20 | Posted by 726

Actually, they all are.

This is one more example of headline grabbing "voter fraud news" that was, once again, proven to be a big zero.

#1 | Posted by YAV at 2012-01-30 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep! Because these six prove the other 949 that have not been seen are all honest.

The only reason anyone would have to oppose voter ID laws, is if he wants to allow voter fraud to occur.

"The only reason anyone would have to oppose voter ID laws, is if he wants to allow voter fraud to occur."

Hahahahahahaha!

Drive a car
Get a mortgage
Rent an apartment
Get alcohol
Get in a nightclub
Cash a check
Get foodstamps
Fly on an airplane
Get a marriage license
Take a test drive
#12 | POSTED BY DNMXT AT 2012-01-31 02:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

None of those are constitutional rights dimwit.
#20 | Posted by 726

Actually, they all are.
#23 | Posted by rightisright

Really? Care to explain?

"Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects."

Benjamin Franklin on the dangers of granting politicians too much power.

I really don't give a crap about South Carolina, but requiring a photo ID to vote just makes sense. The only people that argue against the ID requirement are those who hope to benefit from votes cast by those who cannot meet the requirements to receive one. The same people who want to let felons vote..."non-citizens" to vote...lower the voting age...

Commence the screeching about "disenfranchising the elderly and minorities".

The same people who want to...lower the voting age...

Oh, you mean like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon?

...photo ID laws, which tend to suppress the turnout of Democratic-leaning voting groups...

Now, why would that be? Could it be that the Dems are cheating, but we just have not figured out how as yet?

They must be doing it in such a way that voter IDs would catch them. Why else would they be SOO upset about the idea of an ID to vote?

If the voter ID thing caused Republican leaning voting groups not to show up, the dems would say STUFU.

Yep! Because these six prove the other 949 that have not been seen are all honest.
#24 | POSTED BY VERNON AT 2012-01-31 09:52 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

That's how auditing works. It's pretty standard. A self-claimed business man like yourself should be aware of this.

1/3rd of the occupants in my house haven't had a valid state-issued ID in over a decade.
Some case.

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-01-31 01:09 AM | REPLY | FLAG

shit, who are you holding in the basement for social security checks?

None of those are constitutional rights dimwit.
#20 | Posted by 726
Actually, they all are.
#23 | Posted by rightisright
Really? Care to explain?

#27 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-01-31 10:03 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Amendment 2Pac is the right to party down in a night club with your crew.

Amendment Route 66 is the right drive a car.

That means that ever person under the age of 16 is being denied their constitutional right to drive. I am sure Right is wrong is preparing a class action suit at this very moment to ensure the 0-16 drivers are no longer disenfranchised from the open road.

I just want to know when was the Right to fly a commercial airline passed.

"The assclowns I'm referring to are often advocating letting parents cast votes for their kids as soon as they're born..."

Ok, now yer just making shit up.

.

#37 | POSTED BY DAVE

I wish I were

At the present time the voting age across the world is typically 18. When the right to vote was first accorded in democracies the voting age was generally set at 21, or in some cases at an even higher level. In the 1970s widespread reform led to a reduction to 18 in a large number of countries. Debate is currently underway in many places on proposals to reduce the voting age below 18. In May 2009, Danish Member of Parliament Mogens Jensen presented an initiative to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg to lower the voting age in Europe to 16.[1] There has also been discussion of giving votes to children from birth, initially with the votes being cast by parents, who are presumed to better understand a child's interests (Demeny voting).

#38 | Posted by MUSTANG

Just damn...I stand corrected.

But just because there's a handful of European lunatics advocating bullshit, doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

And yer "List of international groups advocating lowering the voting age" looks like a fair amount of bullshit...where'd ya find that?

.

Just damn...I stand corrected.
#39 | Posted by Dave at 2012-01-31 12:05 PM

In the corner with a pointy hat. We know you were the retard of the class Dopey Dave. Not surprised you are just as stupid and retarded as an adult proudly wearing a D on your chest...

Why would there be voter fraud? Non of the dems were running for an office, it was just honest republicans.

#39 | POSTED BY DAVE

and Dave, note how many of those groups advocate completely abolishing minimum voting age.

Why shouldn't kids be allowed to vote? They are "endowed by their creator", citizens, and born with natural rights are they not? Decisions made today will affect them more than us. Competency isn't a test to vote. If it were half the people on this site would be disenfranchised.

I would blindly trust an average 12yo to make an intelligent decision over Eddie, bibble or Vernon. (No, I'm not kidding)

Say you are forced to proxy your vote from now own. Given the choice between a 14 yo girl or Sniper, which do you choose? This is basically a rhetorical question is it not?!

#40 | Posted by crispee_oc

Just glad to bring a bright spot to yer otherwise pathetic existence.

And wipe yer chin.

.

I would say that if a competency test for voters was introduced as a requirement to vote, it would be obliterated in the press as a racist attempt to exclude minorities, which would would in itself be racist because it implies minorities are incompetent. I don't think competency is the issue though. It's experience (I shy away from using the terms wisdom or maturity, because experience doesn't always lead to wisdom and the DR is proof that age does not equal maturity).

Not really a tough call on my proxy: if I choose Sniper I know that there won't be a President Bieber.

if I choose Sniper I know that there won't be a President Bieber.

I saw that joke coming :D

Seriously, you'd proxy your vote to Sniper, a semi-literate hick, over an average teenager? No, I don't think so. You're just being stubborn.
OK, Jackass then. Same mental capabilities as Sniper. You'd pick him over a 14yo?

...if a competency test for voters...
I didn't want to get bogged down in that. We both agree no such test will given. I wanted to hear your argument for why a freggin moron like Sniper gets to cast a vote but 16yo honor student shouldn't be allowed.

There's too much risk in allowing someone still in the educational system to vote. The risk lies in our schools becoming political indoctrination centers (even more than they are now) instead of teaching the R's. There may be a small percentage of kids that age that are equipped mentally and emotionally to handle the responsibility, but most aren't. Whether you agree with our DR special-ed nominees or not, they do appear to have experienced enough of the real world to have formed their own opinions, not just rebroadcasting those of others (there are DR exceptions, of course).

"I didn't want to get bogged down in that."

Of course not. Then you would have to be reminded of the stupid argument that an ID disenfranchises some pathetic individual who has no test and can still vote...

"Just glad to bring a bright spot to yer otherwise pathetic existence."

Compared to a fucking limpwristed retard named Daaaavvvveee who wears a fucking baseball cap all day?

Everyday I wake up, I see the ocean and get to fish if the tides are ood. You on the otherhand get up, grab the cap and wait for someone to say Good for you Dave, you dressed yourself...

There's too much risk in allowing someone still in the educational system to vote. The risk lies in our schools becoming political indoctrination centers
I could substitute "church" for "school" in your statement and make the same point.
So kids aren't allowed to have an influence on their school, but old ass blue hairs who probably won't even live through the term of our next President can vote for a candidate that promises to increase their Social Security and Medicare?
Who has more to lose on the next Supreme Court Justice, a kid or someone who has already picked out their burial plot?

kids that age that are equipped mentally and emotionally to handle the responsibility, but most aren't
"most"? citation please
This is the same argument used to keep women from voting.

DR special-ed nominees..appear to have experienced enough of the real world to have formed their own opinions, not just rebroadcasting those of others
Yeah, stupid opinions. Nonsensical opinions. Self-interested opinions. Non reality based opinions....
You're giving WAY too much credit to the special-EDers and not nearly enough to American youth.

Hey, I have three kids: two of voting age. The two older ones get their news on Facebook and whatever is showing on Cartoon Network. They don't study politics...they find causes.

Citation, really? It was an opinion. I wasn't just addressing public schools, either. Private, religious, you name it. And I have no issue with you throwing churches in there, for that matter. On the other hand, if you have a citation saying they are emotionally and intellectually prepared, I love to read...

I did find your reference to old people voting to increase their medicare interesting, as I've always felt (no citation) that the elderly tended to form a more conservative block....AARP commercials aside.

Last note: Yeah, stupid opinions. Nonsensical opinions. Self-interested opinions. Non reality based opinions... Would that be your opinion?

Then you would have to be reminded of the stupid argument that an ID disenfranchises some pathetic individual who has no test and can still vote...

I don't need reminding, but thanks anyway. As I've said before, ID is a non-issue to me. ID or no ID--there will still be fraudulent elections, illegal voting, and people too dumb to breathe will still get bused to the polls. It changes nothing, but like most Republican "ideas", it gives the illusion of something meaningful.

Forget IDs. I'd like for everyone to pass a 20 question general knowledge essay before they can vote.
Can't write 5 sentences in legible English on the Barbary Wars--fuck off.
Can't name the first 5 Presidents of the US--better luck next November.

NICE! The Barbary Wars! I like it. Sign me up to proctor.

Forget IDs. I'd like for everyone to pass a 20 question general knowledge essay before they can vote.
Can't write 5 sentences in legible English on the Barbary Wars--fuck off.
Can't name the first 5 Presidents of the US--better luck next November.

#54 | Posted by BluSky

Right. And you don't think that the same dumb illegal voters won't be handed out index cards with the answers on them?

Speaking of giving the illusion of something meaningful.

How about instead of a test specifically designed to test voters, we administer the citizenship test (that every legal immigrant to the US must pass) to each voter prior to allowing them to register?

we administer the citizenship test (that every legal immigrant to the US must pass) to each voter prior to allowing them to register?

Posted by MUSTANG at 2012-01-31 03:05 PM |

I would LOVE to take that test personally. I am curious how well I would do. I wonder if they have a copy online...must Google. BRB.

#57 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina established an educational requirement, with review by a local registrar of a voter's qualifications. In 1898 Georgia rejected such a device.

Alabama delegates at first hesitated, concerned should illiterate whites lose their votes. But under the stipulation that the new constitution would not disfranchise any white voters and also that it would be submitted to the people for ratification, Alabama was able to pass an educational requirement. It was ratified at the polls November 1901. Its distinctive feature was the "good character clause" (also known as the "grandfather clause"). An appointment board in each county could register "all voters under the present [previous] law" who were veterans or the lawful descendants of such, and "all who are of good character and understand the duties and obligations of citizenship." This gave the board authority essentially to approve voters on a case-by-case basis. They acted to enfranchise whites over blacks.[8]

#59 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Hahahahaha! You need to go further back in this thread to see this:

I would say that if a competency test for voters was introduced as a requirement to vote, it would be obliterated in the press as a racist attempt to exclude minorities, which would would in itself be racist because it implies minorities are incompetent.

#47 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

In 1901, it probably was exclusionary. Not so today. Anyone who would play the race card would themselves be the racists, as I argued above.

#60 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Sorry, Must -

I didn't mean to offer that as my argument. I should have been more clear that it would be the response offered by NAACP and its backers in the media. That was the point of my post, which I admittedly did not indicate directly.

If it's on Wikipedia, you can for sure well know that's how it'll be perceived in public (i.e. the press).

Wait, 950 people dead/alive or what ever have been named as suspect, they have looked at 6 names which leaves 946 names to check out and some body is saying..."still no voter fraud found"... as if that is some kind of proof of no voter fraud ?

That for me would surly get my suspicion up as to why some body would be trying to shout down or redirect the investigation.

Lets see what the numbers say after the last 946 names are checked out.
Just because peoples names are on the list does not indicate voter fraud, but it also means that there are some irregularities with these names...lets see what the problem is.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

Just because peoples names are on the list does not indicate voter fraud, but it also means that there are some irregularities with these names...lets see what the problem is.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER....

#62 | Posted by MENSAKOOK

Nothing wrong with the names...actually dying is normal. People die. The problem is that the voting rolls are not being updated properly.

No dead people have actually voted yet.

Therefore... NO VOTER FRAUD HAS OCCURRED in this case.

I would LOVE to take that test personally. I am curious how well I would do. I wonder if they have a copy online...must Google. BRB.

#58 | Posted by kanrei

I would bet most US citizens would miss 50% of the questions.

I passed the online test but I only got 60%.

60% without practicing...with practice 100% (of course I was lucky as the questions change every time)

1) What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
A. must vote in federal elections
B. be loyal to the country you were born in
C. speak English or Spanish when you are in the United States
->D. serve (do important work) for the nation if needed
Your answer was correct.

2) Who was President during World War I?
->A. Woodrow Wilson
B. Abraham Lincoln
C. George Bush
D. Franklin Roosevelt
Your answer was correct.

3) What is the capital of the United States?
->A. Washington, D.C.
B. Chicago
C. Los Angeles
D. New York
Your answer was correct.

4) Name one right only for United States citizens.
A. serve on a jury
B. go to a high school or a university
C. live and work in the United States
->D. vote in a federal election
Your answer was correct.

5) What is the political party of the President now?
A. Independent
->B. Democratic
C. Republican
D. No party
Your answer was correct.

6) Who are your state's U.S. Senators now? *
->A. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
B. Sherrod Brown and Barbara Boxer
C. Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown
D. Rob Portman and Dianne Feinstein
Your answer was correct.

7) Name one state that borders Mexico.
A. Nevada
->B. New Mexico
C. Florida
D. Louisiana
Your answer was correct.

8) When was the Constitution written?
A. 1780
B. 1776
C. 1778
->D. 1787
Your answer was correct.

9) What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?
A. free Asian workers in San Francisco Bay area
->B. freed slaves in the Confederate states
C. free workers from paying high tax
D. free women from house chores
Your answer was correct.

10) What is one reason colonists came to America?
->A. political liberty
B. look for the Great Canyon
C. hunt animals
D. look for other cultural statements
Your answer was correct.

Nothing wrong with the names...actually dying is normal. People die. The problem is that the voting rolls are not being updated properly.

No dead people have actually voted yet.

Therefore... NO VOTER FRAUD HAS OCCURRED in this case.

#63 | Posted by donnerboy

You mean of the 6 people they have checked out from the original 950.

Yea....you and Danforth's M.I.L. are on the case.

#12 | POSTED BY DNMXT AT 2012-01-31 02:42 AM

BRAVO

You mean of the 6 people they have checked out from the original 950.

Yea....you and Danforth's M.I.L. are on the case.

#68 | Posted by MENSAKOOK

yup...all YOU have proved is that MAYBE 950 people have died.

and that would be 950 names out of how many? And was it REALLY 950?

While he said that his staff had determined that approximately 950 people might have voted after dying, he added a caveat: Data-reporting problems or other errors could lower that number.

You will need to test them all now to actually PROVE anything.

There has been no voter fraud proved.

All you have is SPECULATION.

Yes, even Danforth and Donnerboy (two anonymous bloggers) could pick that case apart.

"The 950 graveyard voters in South Carolina have now entered the pantheon of voter fraud paranoia," writes Kevin Drum. "That'll be good for passing photo ID laws, which tend to suppress the turnout of Democratic-leaning voting groups"

Sounds right. But where is your evidence that ID requirements suppress Democrats?

You fault others for purportedly having no evidence of fraud, yet you don't bother, probably haven't even had the thought, of providing evidence for your own fear-based claims.

Yea...who listens to 1hundred year old black ladies anyway

I guess you could still classify republicans as dead voters.

You fault others for purportedly having no evidence of fraud, yet you don't bother, probably haven't even had the thought, of providing evidence for your own fear-based claims.

#71 | Posted by BloodSacrafice at 2012-02-01 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Yea...who listens to 1hundred year old black ladies anyway

#72 | Posted by donnerboy

ok she was only 96

ok she was only 96

timesfreepress.com

Do you need more proof?

It is lot more than you have.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy

If you have the time to write about her, perhaps you have the time to help get her an ID.

No suppression. ID helps ensure the credibility of each and every vote, including 96 year old, newly ID'd old ladles.

Get off your ass and gets some IDs for these folks. Bitch.