|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
22 signs that the Presidental election was a fraud
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 22 signs that the Presidental election was a fraudBy Michael, on November 13th, 2012 After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions. Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up, so it isn’t as if there is any chance that the results of the presidential election could be overturned anyhow. But if massive election fraud did take place and nobody is held accountable, what kind of message will that send for the future? Will we ever be able to have faith in the integrity of our elections ever again? The following are 22 signs that voter fraud is wildly out of control and the election was a sham… #1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day. #2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney. #3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation. #4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama… It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.” He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes. He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program. Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default. #5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas. #6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago. #7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama. #8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less. #9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did. #10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida. #11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day. #12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%. #13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote. #14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots. #15 Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted. #16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted. #17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day… “The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.” #18 In Wisconsin, there were allegations that Obama voters were actually being bussed in from out of state… The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8 .m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY??? #19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state. #20 It is being alleged that unions in Nevada have been registering illegal immigrants and pressuring them to vote. #21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama… Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes. #22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all. So what do you think about all of this? Do you still believe that elections in America are fair and honest? endoftheamericandream.com I admit that this is topic specific website, but if you check it out you will see that his points have links to more conventional news outlets. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-Mar-13, 16:57 |
|
||||||
|
DM... |
||||||
|
dmaestro 03-Mar-13, 22:41 |
It is not like Obama won in Ohio but lost in other states. |
||||||
|
DM... ------------------------ 1) Ask yourself: "How much harder is it for me to carry an ID out the door once every 4 years to insure the integrity of the the most important thing I will ever do politically?" 2) It is not as if they want to make it harder only for demographics favorable to Obama... the ID qualification would apply to all. 3) What is the worst thing that can happen in each case? In your case: Legitimate voters that are unwilling/unable to obtain an ID and take it with them to the polls are disenfranchised from voting. In my case: voter fraud. What should be a greater concern: disinterested voters or unscrupulous politicians? DM: <When you factor it all in there was simply not enough to shift the results.> ----------------------- We will never know... think about this: we now know that some companies are "too big to fail." Is it so hard to imagine that the President of the United States is "too big to disqualify?" DM: <It is not like Obama won in Ohio but lost in other states.> ----------------------- No... my initial post also mentions Pennsylvania and Colorado in addition to other states across the US. |
||||||
|
I would hazard a guess that Romney won many precincts that reported zero votes for Obama, I have quickly tried to search for the data, but failed. If anyone could give me a hand there I would appreciate it. |
||||||
|
itchy |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Itchy.. ----------------------------- Of course there will be statistical anomalies. These are not troubling by themselves, however, you are ignoring the voting machines changing votes and 100%+ turnout aspects of my post. <I would hazard a guess that Romney won many precincts that reported zero votes for Obama, I have quickly tried to search for the data, but failed. If anyone could give me a hand there I would appreciate it.> -------------------------------- Try checking out this site: hatthief.blogspot.com |
||||||
|
Chaz ----------------------- Not in my book Chaz. Although I don't necessarily agree with gerrymandering, when you make "safe" districts you necessarily drain surrounding districts of that voter profile. Making it that much more likely that the opposing parties will win in adjacent districts. It is zero-sum-gain in that respect. My problem with with gerrymandered districts is that you get politicians that are more comfortable maintaining a hard-line, unwilling to compromise. |
||||||
|
Pecos ... |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-Mar-13, 11:58 |
The election came out nearly exactly as the compiled analysis of polls by statistician Nate Silver suggested. I am not opposed to a free, readily available voter ID and readily available polls along with provisional ballots. But measures proven to have disparate impact I do not favor. The gerrymandering of districts is why even though more votes were cast for democrats in house races the republicans kept their majority. |
||||||
|
Chaz... IMO |
||||||
|
exactly also, i would abolish electronic voting and use paper only. electronic voting is too easy to defraud. and if it were up to me, i would abolish the electoral college. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-Mar-13, 12:09 |
That way playing with votes in some precinct doesn't matter as much. The person who gets the most votes should win. |
||||||
|
Pecos ... Besides we're talking about voting, gerrymandering, etc. The prez cannot change these things on his own, and Congress has this sense of self-preservation and will not likely propose anything constructive. |
||||||
|
DM... ---------------------- If my intention was to overturn the election I would have been here soon after the election. I am more concerned with exposing fraud in the long term. <The election came out nearly exactly as the compiled analysis of polls by statistician Nate Silver suggested.> ----------------------- Which in itself demonstrates a fraud if you consider the "Bradley effect." "The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6] The Bradley effect theory posits that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[7][8] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers. en.wikipedia.org <I am not opposed to a free, readily available voter ID and readily available polls along with provisional ballots. But measures proven to have disparate impact I do not favor.> ------------------------ In favor of voter ID, in principle... nice! <The gerrymandering of districts is why even though more votes were cast for democrats in house races the republicans kept their majority."> ----------------------- Well... not every seat was up for a vote.... and gerrymandering is not limited to Republicans. |
||||||
|
Chaz... ------------------------ Lol.... I know no such thing. A real leader would be proposing solutions instead of constantly campaigning, lets look at what Obama is doing/has done: 1) Did not propose a budget (these issues would not exist if there was a budget); 2) Proposed the sequester; 3) "Moved the goalposts" so as to make negotiations more difficult; 4) Hypes the negative aspects of the deal he proposed!! <The left (and apparently a majority of Americans) right now believe the president is leading. The right (and less than a majority) keep saying there is an absence of leadership.> ------------------------- You know what P.T. Barnum said about the public, don't you? <Besides we're talking about voting, gerrymandering, etc. The prez cannot change these things on his own, and Congress has this sense of self-preservation and will not likely propose anything constructive.> -------------------------- How about the President comes out with a plan to minimize the effects of Sequester? What do you think are the chances he will do that? |
||||||
|
Well with regard the voting machines changing votes, I have heard that reported from both sides, and have even seen a video of this happening in favour of Romney. In any large election there are going to be issues somewhere. Something happens at every major election, at our last general election it was reported that lots of voters whee turned away when they shouldn't have been, mistakes do happen, so long as they were not egregious enough to affect the result they have to be the natural result of running something of this scale. A few mistakes do not a conspiracy make. I would also like to bet there were a few that benefitted Romney, it just these have not been reported, which is textbook confirmation bias. Thank you for posting info, I'm on my phone at the moment so can't fully look at it but I'll be sure to peruse it tomorrow. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
ZL... sorry, I missed your post in the flurry of commets ------------------------- I agree! ZL: also, i would abolish electronic voting and use paper only. electronic voting is too easy to defraud. ------------------------- I agree!! ZL: and if it were up to me, i would abolish the electoral college. ------------------------ I agree!!! |
||||||
|
dmaestro 04-Mar-13, 15:17 |
|
||||||
|
rmannstaedt 05-Mar-13, 09:56 |
PB I don't think you can use the Bradley effect (or lack of it) to demonstrate a likely voter fraud. At least not according to Nate Silver himself ... www.newrepublic.com True, that is a 2008 article. But the points seem to be as valid today as they were then. |
||||||
|
rmannstaedt 05-Mar-13, 10:07 |
PB Manipulation of the voting machines is said to be very simple, as per this article: "In 2008, researchers at Princeton University found that it took seven minutes, using simple tools, to install a different computer program in a voting machine "that steals votes from one party's candidates, and gives them to another." That machine, the Sequoia Avantage, is still used in at least six states by 9 million voters, according to Roger Johnston, who heads the vulnerability assessment team at Argonne National Laboratory." Source: www.huffingtonpost.com All in all, I don't trust electronic voting. |
||||||
|
rmannstaedt 05-Mar-13, 10:14 |
PB In situations where it is "winner takes all", then gerrymandering is not a "zero-sum-gain" operation. Example: District A: 10.000 voters, split as 9.000 republicans, 1.000 democrats = *republican* District B: 10.000 voters, split as 4.000 republicans, 6.000 democrats = *democrat* If you gerrymander the districts so that you redistribute some of the republican voters in district A, you could easily get 2 republicans elected rather than just 1: After gerrymandering: District A: 10.000 voters, split as 7.000 republicans, 3.000 democrats = *republican* District B: 10.000 voters, split as 6.000 republicans, 4.000 democrats = *republican* |
||||||
|
rmann... |
||||||
|
dmaestro 05-Mar-13, 10:27 |
|
||||||
|
RMS... District B: 10.000 voters, split as 4.000 republicans, 6.000 democrats = *democrat* If you gerrymander the districts so that you redistribute some of the republican voters in district A, you could easily get 2 republicans elected rather than just 1: After gerrymandering: District A: 10.000 voters, split as 7.000 republicans, 3.000 democrats = *republican* District B: 10.000 voters, split as 6.000 republicans, 4.000 democrats = *republican*> ------------------------------ So you are talking about an area that has 13,000 republicans and 7,000 democrats and gerrymandering that changes it from 1:1 to 2:0 is a good example of unfairness? Kinda inaccurate either way don't you think? |
||||||
|
rmannstaedt 12-Mar-13, 02:24 |
pecos The exact numbers doesn't matter; this is a theoretical example. It shows that gerrymandering can have exactly the effect of enabling one party to carry more districts after than before. If you revert the gerrymandering you see exactly the same effect: one party - in that case the democrats - gets more districts than before (gains 1, had 0). |
||||||
|
changeling 12-Mar-13, 05:45 |
|
||||||
| |||||||
