Was the 2012 Election Ruined by Fraud?

[ClydeR]

A new poll says yes.


Key Findings:
Republicans believe voter fraud played a big role in the 2012 election.

More... (http://www.hamilton.edu/news/polls/2012-post-election-survey)


After the election, fears about voter fraud abated among Democrats but skyrocketed among Republicans, with 58 percent of Republicans not confident at all about the fairness of the election.

Republicans are particularly concerned about voter fraud and intimidation in big urban areas, with 32 percent of them believing that it had a big impact on the election, 49 percent believing it had some impact, and only 19 percent believing it had no impact.

Birtherism is alive and well.

Since before he was elected, President Barack Obama has been dogged by rumors that he was born outside of the United States and, therefore, ineligible to serve as President. Despite releasing his long-form birth certificate in 2011, these rumors have persisted. In particular, between 40 and 70 percent of Republicans still believe that President Obama may have been born outside of the U.S.

[Methais]

In before WB says there was no fraud to any degree.

[Whirlin]

Actually... doesn't matter if there was fraud or not... all this survey states is that republicans believe there was fraud.

Beliefs don't necessarily reflect actual events. They are a way for individuals to come to terms with things that they can't understand (see: Religion).

Given that the republican party tends to be more religious than their democratic counterparts, by extension, it would lead towards beliefs of other conditions in the absence of fact.

Do I think that voter fraud exists? It would be naive to think it never occurs.
Did it exist to the extent that it would sway an election? I have not seen any evidence to support that. Nor does this article go into that. All it states that religious people believe in something that facts haven't supported yet... what a concept!

[Jarvan]

Actually... doesn't matter if there was fraud or not... all this survey states is that republicans believe there was fraud.

Beliefs don't necessarily reflect actual events. They are a way for individuals to come to terms with things that they can't understand (see: Religion).

Given that the republican party tends to be more religious than their democratic counterparts, by extension, it would lead towards beliefs of other conditions in the absence of fact.

Do I think that voter fraud exists? It would be naive to think it never occurs.
Did it exist to the extent that it would sway an election? I have not seen any evidence to support that. Nor does this article go into that. All it states that religious people believe in something that facts haven't supported yet... what a concept!

I just got to ask.. Do you really believe that believing in something that is not supported by facts yet is purely a religious thing?

I think it's a human nature thing. I am sure if someone wanted to, they could find dozens of examples of non religious people doing the same thing.

Also, your assumption that republicans are more religious then dems is faulty. It could be more accurate to say on average conservatives are more religious then liberals. But even that generalization is faulty. You could point at just about every single Dem in office as the example that disproves the rule. Unless of course all those Dems lie about being religious just to get the religious vote.

[Methais]

Actually... doesn't matter if there was fraud or not... all this survey states is that republicans believe there was fraud.

Beliefs don't necessarily reflect actual events. They are a way for individuals to come to terms with things that they can't understand (see: Religion).

Given that the republican party tends to be more religious than their democratic counterparts, by extension, it would lead towards beliefs of other conditions in the absence of fact.

Do I think that voter fraud exists? It would be naive to think it never occurs.
Did it exist to the extent that it would sway an election? I have not seen any evidence to support that. Nor does this article go into that. All it states that religious people believe in something that facts haven't supported yet... what a concept!

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=6620512

[Jarvan]

Actually... doesn't matter if there was fraud or not... all this survey states is that republicans believe there was fraud.

Beliefs don't necessarily reflect actual events. They are a way for individuals to come to terms with things that they can't understand (see: Religion).

Given that the republican party tends to be more religious than their democratic counterparts, by extension, it would lead towards beliefs of other conditions in the absence of fact.

Do I think that voter fraud exists? It would be naive to think it never occurs.
Did it exist to the extent that it would sway an election? I have not seen any evidence to support that. Nor does this article go into that. All it states that religious people believe in something that facts haven't supported yet... what a concept!

Also.. I forget where I read it, and it wasn't Fox. But it was reported that Obama didn't even qualify for one of the states during the primaries against Clinton. He didn't have enough valid signatures. Of course this wasn't found out until well after he was President (he won the state by the way). So technically, if it was true, (it's been awhile since I read it and at this point it doesn't matter) then yes, even a tiny bit of voter fraud can sway an election.

Here it is..

http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-10-13/news/30278211_1_clinton-petition-fake-signatures-petition-pages/2

Now.. the question is, does it really matter at this point? No not really. But at the time, yes it would have mattered if it was true. Of course, truth is... flexible.


On a side note.. A lot of people can't understand How heating their home can cause the earth to heat up, which then causes the earth to cool down. Yet a large number of people Believe it is happening. Guess those nut job climate people just found a way to come to terms with it huh. (I.E. Religion)

[Methais]

Have faith in global warming!

[Latrinsorm]

40 to 70%... lol. No wonder our party's nominee didn't bother preparing a concession speech.

[Candor]

Just because you don't believe Candor isn't King of The Landing, doesn't mean he isn't King of The Landing.

So there!! Nyah Nyah!

[DrZaius]

Somehow, I don't think they're referring to all those black people they systematically tried to disenfranchise that blew up in their face...

[zzentar]

Somehow, I don't think they're referring to all those black people they systematically tried to disenfranchise that blew up in their face...

Do you mean doing stuff like requiring an ID so that non citizens couldn't vote?

[DrZaius]

Do you mean doing stuff like requiring an ID so that non citizens couldn't vote?

No, I meant cancelling dates allowing people to vote ahead of time, because it's common in the african american community to do so (since many have to work on Super Tuesday). I'm sure the 5 people who used their fake ID really turned the table on the election, though.

I mean, you could google this stuff, if you were actually interested in finding out what happened. My guess is... you probably won't.

[Warriorbird]

In before WB says there was no fraud to any degree.

I love when you make shit up. I'm on record on this board as saying there was fraud in every election in the 20th century. I don't expect the 21st to be any different.

[Methais]

The overwhelming majority of scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics) hold the reasoned opinion that climate change is being caused/accelerated by mankind. But, sure. "Have faith," says the indoctrinated herpderper.

I'm an "indoctrinated herpderper" because I don't believe in global warming, then you mock my "have faith in global warming" comment in the same breath that you admit there is no factual scientific evidence that humans are causing or exacerbating global warming, by stating it's a scientific opinion, and borrowing the "overwhelming majority" part from Jimmy Carter even. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for you, but science isn't based in opinion. I'm gonna assume that you ignored all of the cherry picking that was exposed during the climategate thing a few years ago too.

The irony of your post, and your faith in an opinion is astounding.

[Methais]

I love when you make shit up. I'm on record on this board as saying there was fraud in every election in the 20th century. I don't expect the 21st to be any different.

http://216.64.210.4/dynamic/press_center/site/images/mainimages/fanta-less-serious.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://216.64.210.4/dynamic/press_center/site/images/mainimages/fanta-less-serious.jpg

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Barack-Obama-11.jpg

[Methais]

http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Barack-Obama-11.jpg

http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com/images/packagings/Fanta%20grape%2016%20oz.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com/images/packagings/Fanta%20grape%2016%20oz.jpg

http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/redneck_mentor.jpg

[~Rocktar~]

No, I meant cancelling dates allowing people to vote ahead of time, because it's common in the african american community to do so (since many have to work on Super Tuesday). I'm sure the 5 people who used their fake ID really turned the table on the election, though.

I mean, you could google this stuff, if you were actually interested in finding out what happened. My guess is... you probably won't.

Since there are law that provide for time off to vote should your scheduled working hours block a substantial amount of poll time, how exactly does this really make someone disenfranchised? After all for the cost of a stamp you can absentee vote. Seriously, voting is a right that takes effort and if you are unwilling to put forward that effort, then you should not be catered too. This is just another way to garner more votes from a more and more apathetic populous of liberal voters who are too lazy to get out and vote when they need too. If you don't care enough to go register, show up and cast your vote, then you deserve what happens to you.

[TheEschaton]

http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com/images/packagings/Fanta%20grape%2016%20oz.jpg

I think we need to stop for a moment and recognize the brilliantness of this response.

[DrZaius]

Since there are law that provide for time off to vote should your scheduled working hours block a substantial amount of poll time, how exactly does this really make someone disenfranchised? After all for the cost of a stamp you can absentee vote. Seriously, voting is a right that takes effort and if you are unwilling to put forward that effort, then you should not be catered too. This is just another way to garner more votes from a more and more apathetic populous of liberal voters who are too lazy to get out and vote when they need too. If you don't care enough to go register, show up and cast your vote, then you deserve what happens to you.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-long-term-strategy-limit-voting-rights-050202598.html

The point is they were making the effort, but by eliminating extra days ahead of the election to vote (in say, States like Florida where the districts with heavier black populations had record lines on election day) they were in effect making it more difficult for certain groups to cast their ballots. I guess there's a crazy way you can think to yourself "That's fair! I don't see why they shouldn't do stuff like that!" but I struggle to for some reason.

[Latrinsorm]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for you, but science isn't based in opinion.Empirical science is, that's why it has to be done by experiment as opposed to on blackboards. Consider your own responses to any study whose conclusion you personally disagree with. Neither you, nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews (to whom I apologize) are compelled by data. You are humans, and every empirical measurement has a margin of error for you to cling to if you so choose.

[~Rocktar~]

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-long-term-strategy-limit-voting-rights-050202598.html

The point is they were making the effort, but by eliminating extra days ahead of the election to vote (in say, States like Florida where the districts with heavier black populations had record lines on election day) they were in effect making it more difficult for certain groups to cast their ballots. I guess there's a crazy way you can think to yourself "That's fair! I don't see why they shouldn't do stuff like that!" but I struggle to for some reason.

Because standing in line to exercise your vote is so hard that you need to cater to the ADHD whiners. Seriously! If you can't stand in line where the polls won't close until everyone votes then fuck off. I stand in line to vote, it's part of the price I pay every 4 years to have a voice in how my country is getting fucked over. If that is too much for you to do, then too bad.

[Methais]

And you basically highlighted your inability to understand the article's point, the entire point of science--and empiricism--and chose to focus on selective readings of word choice. Ignorance and deflection--somewhat related to your misguided notion that believing (again, not believing in the sense of believing without evidence) in man-caused global warming requires "faith."

What the fuck are you talking about? I wasn't responding to some article, I was responding to this at the end of Jarvan's post,...


Guess those nut job climate people just found a way to come to terms with it huh. (I.E. Religion)

...and then you went all retarded over it. And my previous post was responding to you, not some article.


The scientific community holds, in virtually unanimous consensus, that mankind is accelerating or causing climate change. To what degree, there isn't complete agreement. I said "reasoned opinion." That reasoned opinion is based on empirical observations of the world by non-biased sources. I'm going to assume that you're totally ignorant of the fact that all the parties involved in the so-called "Climategate" scandal were totally cleared of data manipulation charges by numerous independent reviews. You are mind-blowingly stupid.

http://i1.wp.com/theminorityreport.co/stixblog/files/2012/07/demotivational-posters-quadruple-facepalm.jpg

[Methais]

http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/redneck_mentor.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jnkmooma1W4/T16Y6-edYII/AAAAAAAAA8k/sMf8PiLQW_Q/s320/fat%2Bwomen.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jnkmooma1W4/T16Y6-edYII/AAAAAAAAA8k/sMf8PiLQW_Q/s320/fat%2Bwomen.jpg

Now wait two minutes and a few seconds.


http://vimeo.com/33961904

[Jarvan]

And you basically highlighted your inability to understand the article's point, the entire point of science--and empiricism--and chose to focus on selective readings of word choice. Ignorance and deflection--somewhat related to your misguided notion that believing (again, not believing in the sense of believing without evidence) in man-caused global warming requires "faith."

You're an idiot, as proved by virtually every one of your posts in the political forum. Especially considering that you believe that "Climategate" was a scandal at all, as opposed to conservatives immediately leaping upon any opportunity to attack something they disagree with (similar to Benghazi), in total disregard of the facts, and relying solely upon their base being totally misinformed.

The scientific community holds, in virtually unanimous consensus, that mankind is accelerating or causing climate change. To what degree, there isn't complete agreement. I said "reasoned opinion." That reasoned opinion is based on empirical observations of the world by non-biased sources. I'm going to assume that you're totally ignorant of the fact that all the parties involved in the so-called "Climategate" scandal were totally cleared of data manipulation charges by numerous independent reviews. You are mind-blowingly stupid.

Every source is always biased.

Just saying.

Also I think the phrase... in virtually unanimous consensus... should never be used. Except maybe when referring to how stupid most of my posts are.

[AnticorRifling]

Now wait two minutes and a few seconds.


http://vimeo.com/33961904

Mmmm Betty Page and some chick with pasties. Nicely done.