Election Fraud & Voter Suppression 2016

[mentalgongfu2]

Lmao Rory. Thanks for that. I needed it.

[backtoiam]

Seriously. Posting obvious fabrications and pretending he didn't realize it and then reposting it and saying it's just asking a question is this guy's MO and he should get a warning and then banned if he continues. Bullshit opinions are one thing, conscious lies another.

You don't bother me either jack. I don't pay attention to you. I said up front when I first posted it that I wasn't sure if it was accurate.

[DrEvil]

^^Of course it wasn't accurate. You're like the forum poster version of Murphy's law. Anything you can get wrong you will get wrong (Hint: Pennsylvania is not in Russia).

[Jerky]

So now we have someone in our midst who thinks Snopes - a website devoted solely to the rigorous investigation of claims in order to determine whether or not they are bullshit - is "the last place to go" to find out whether or not something is bullshit.

Imagine being so in love with the smell of your own farts that you refuse to ever come out from underneath the blanket.

Personally, I dig RationalWiki's explanation of the concept of "liberal bias" as it has come to be understood in certain circles at this point in the Late Capitalist Decline:

***

The American right, for example, occupies half of the ideological spectrum and ranges from doctrinaire conservatives like modern Republicans all the way to goose-stepping Neo-Nazis. What they share is a contempt for the grievances of the left-wing, some of which survive news coverage filters. A common tactic of many wingnuts is to dismiss news stories and facts if they consider them to be written in such a way that they distort the truth and present the story with a "liberal" slant. Many commentators are quick to use the argument that any story that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions or understanding of an issue must be wrong, and thus it has a liberal (or other) bias and is actually pushing an agenda—whereas they, of course, are being impartial.

There is a long history of accusing the media of a liberal bias, mainly as a method to discredit critics without having to disprove the point they make (ad hominem). Papers that supported the civil rights movement and labor union movement in the United States were frequently accused of having liberal and/or communist leanings by conservatives. In South Africa, anti-apartheid news outlets were accused of having liberal biases and providing ideological support for the anti-apartheid movement. Unsurprisingly, they were frequently subjected to government censorship.

The accusation of a liberal bias in the media has become so widespread in conservative circles and conversation that the term Mainstream Media (MSM) is largely a colloquialism for "liberal media."

Organizations that conservatives frequently accuse of being liberal:

MSNBC[3]
BBC[4]
CNN[5]
The New York Times[6]
ABC[7]
CBS[8]
NBC[9]
PBS[10]
Associated Press (AP) [11]
The Washington Post[12]
NPR[13]
Anything not owned by Rupert Murdoch
Some things that are owned by Rupert Murdoch[14][15]
[edit]Other liberally curious things

Conservatives don't stop at just accusing news organizations of having a liberal bias. In fact, if everything had the liberal bias that conservatives claimed, reality itself would surely have some form of liberal bias, either that, or liberals are so devious they have managed to take control over every form of communication to distort the truth.

Here is a short list of places conservatives have found liberal bias:

Google[16]
YouTube[17]
Wikipedia[18]
Snopes[19]
PolitiFact[20][21]
FactCheck.org[22]
Facebook[23]
Textbooks[24]
Distributive algebra[25]
Dictionaries[26]
Schools and teachers[27]
Apple[28]
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey and Neil deGrasse Tyson[29]
The Bible itself[30]
Science[citation NOT needed]
Reality[citation NOT needed]

[backtoiam]

^^Of course it wasn't accurate. You're like the forum poster version of Murphy's law. Anything you can get wrong you will get wrong (Hint: Pennsylvania is not in Russia).

I ignore you too. You don't bother me either.

Jerky
So now we have someone in our midst who thinks Snopes - a website devoted solely to the rigorous investigation of claims in order to determine whether or not they are bullshit - is "the last place to go" to find out whether or not something is bullshit.

Same for you.

*yawn*

[Jerky]

Might as well make it official and block my posts then.

As a matter of fact, seeing as I don't come to Rig Int to be reminded of the idiot's view of world events...

J

[seemslikeadream]

Oops! Dems Seize On GOP Lawyer's Apparent Slip On Poll Watcher Call
J. Scott Applewhite
ByTIERNEY SNEEDPublishedNOVEMBER 3, 2016, 7:07 PM EDT

In legal action claiming that the Republican National Committee was illegally engaged in ballot security activities, Democrats are pointing to a conference call in which a Republican operative mentioned that certain GOP ballot security initiatives in Virginia were being handled by the RNC, before quickly walking the comment back.

"I've got the folks RNC has hired on -- um, to help them with...," Virginia Republican Party General Counsel Chris Marston allegedly said, according to a transcript of a poll worker training conference call filed in court by the Democratic National Committee Thursday.

“I’m sorry. The RNC is not doing anything related to Election Day operations,” Marston went on to say with laughter, according to the transcript. The DNC, nonetheless, argued that the comment indicated "the RNC’s involvement and obfuscation."

The transcript was filed in a case regarding a consent decree the RNC agreed to in the early 1980s that prohibited it from participating in certain "ballot security" initiatives. Democrats are claiming that the RNC has violated the decree, which is set to expire in December 2017, and that it should be extended for another eight years. Republicans have maintained that have followed the consent decree, which still allows for Republican state parties (with the exception of New Jersey's) to engage in the sort of poll watching activities the RNC is barred from doing.

According to court documents filed Thursday, a Democratic operative in Virginia, Frank Anderson, signed up on the Donald Trump campaign's website to volunteer as an elections observer. Sometime after, he was contacted by email about signing up to volunteer, and was invited to attend online poll watching training, according to his affidavit. Anderson had his intern sign him up for a training session and he received a number of poll watcher information materials, as well as an invitation to a Nov. 1 training conference call, according to the documents. He said he recorded the call, and the transcript of the call was included in the DNC brief arguing that the court should find the RNC in violation of the decree.

The Democrats argued that the slip -- coupled with comments made by Trump's running mate Mike Pence and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway -- suggest the RNC is collaborating with Trump's ballot integrity initiatives, in violation of the decree.

Both Conway and Pence have said they were mistaken in their description of RNC involvement. The RNC has held that it has followed the decree and not participated in any ballot security activities.

Update: The RNC on Friday filed an affidavit provided by Marston explaining the call, and assured the court that the RNC had no involvement in the local Virginia GOP committee's poll watching training operation.

He also said it was "outrageous that the DNC apparently condones Frank Anderson’s misleading participation in this online program," referencing the methods Anderson used to sign up for the Republican poll watcher training.

The affidavit was filed ahead of a hearing scheduled Friday morning on the case.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ ... ted-decree

Emails show how Republicans lobbied to limit voting hours in North Carolina

North Carolina campaign buttons sit on a table before the start of a rally with Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump in Fletcher, North Carolina, U.S. October 21, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst - RTX2PW7X

By Julia Harte | ASHEBORO, N.C.
When Bill McAnulty, an elections board chairman in a mostly white North Carolina county, agreed in July to open a Sunday voting site where black church members could cast ballots after services, the reaction was swift: he was labeled a traitor by his fellow Republicans.

"I became a villain, quite frankly," recalled McAnulty at a state board of elections meeting in September that had been called to resolve disputes over early voting plans. "I got accused of being a traitor and everything else by the Republican Party," McAnulty said.

Following the blowback from Republicans, McAnulty later withdrew his support for the Sunday site.

In an interview with Reuters, he said he ultimately ruled against opening the Sunday voting site in Randolph County because he had "made a mistake in reading the wishes of the voters." He declined to discuss the episode further.

This year's highly charged presidential contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump has stoked accusations by both parties of political meddling in the scheduling of early voting hours in North Carolina, a coveted battleground state with a history of tight elections.

In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request.

The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday.

Civil rights advocates and Democrats launched their own campaigns for expanded early voting hours.

The tug-of-war yielded mixed results.

The state did ultimately add nearly 5,900 more hours and 78 more sites to vote early than in 2012. But several counties opened only one polling site during the first week of early voting, slightly denting turnout across the state. Voter turnout dropped by 20 percent in the counties that had multiple polling sites during the first week of early voting in 2012 but just one site during the first week in 2016.

“We currently have more early voting locations and hours open than ever were open under Democrat control,” said North Carolina Republican Party executive director Dallas Woodhouse, denying his party was trying to suppress the Democratic vote.

President Barack Obama praised the expanded early voting opportunities during an election stop in North Carolina on Wednesday.

"Those who wanted to suppress the vote, they're going to fail," he said at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in Raleigh. "Right now, there are more one-stop early vote sites in North Carolina than ever before."

Counties that Obama, a Democrat, won in 2012 increased their Sunday hours this year by 16 percent, while counties that voted for his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, decreased them by nearly a quarter, the records show.

State Republican officials say keeping polls open during evenings and weekends, or "off-hour" times, drains county resources.

'FOLKS ARE ANGRY'

In two emails, on Aug. 11 and Aug. 14, Woodhouse urged Republicans serving on county election boards to follow the "party line" on curtailing the early voting period.

"Many of our folks are angry and opposed to Sunday voting," he wrote. “Six days of voting in one week is enough. Period.” Keeping polling sites open for the full 17-day early voting period "may be wasteful and unnecessary," he added.

Woodhouse's emails were subsequently published by local media, but he was not alone in lobbying to limit voting hours, the Reuters review of public records shows. The review counted similar emails from at least four other Republican Party officials to election boards, each of which is composed of two Republicans and one Democrat.

The same day that Woodhouse sent his Aug. 11 email, Elaine Hewitt, a member of the Rowan County Republican Executive Committee, sent the county elections board two proposed schedules for early voting, both of which included just one site for the first four days and no sites on Sundays.

"With all of the opportunities to vote by mail, early in person Monday - Saturday, and on Election Day, there is no justification for requiring election workers to work on Sundays," she wrote.

Garry Terry, the chairman of the Republican Party for North Carolina’s First Congressional District, sent an email on Aug. 13 to elections board members in his region, reminding them to act "in the best interest of the Republican Party" by opposing Sunday voting and restricting early voting to one location.

Hewitt and Terry did not respond to requests for comment. Woodhouse defended the actions of the Republican officials, telling Reuters that Republican opposition to Sunday voting was not discriminatory but was rather based on the belief that people should not be required to work on Sundays.

The Sunday polling site that McAnulty first supported and then opposed would have been located at the Randolph County Board of Elections office and would have cost around $1,000 to operate, according to the office director.

"If it's not wasteful and it allows more people to vote... the board has historically been for that," Margaret Megerian, the Democratic member of board, told Reuters.

In contrast with the Republicans' email campaign, the Democratic push to expand early voting hours has largely taken shape in public forums.

In Democratic-leaning Guilford County, the state's third largest, a county board of elections meeting on Aug. 8 attracted about 75 people after word spread that the board was planning to halve the number of early voting sites, from 24 in 2012.

The Rev. Nelson Johnson said in an interview that the proposal by the board's Republican chairwoman would "prevent voting especially by people who can't easily take time off" and said it "absolutely" had a racial intent. Johnson, who is African American, leads a community center in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Board Chairwoman Kathryn Lindley told Reuters she believed "a lesser number of sites would cause less confusion about which places were going to be open," and that it was "ludicrous" to think her suggested plan had been discriminatory.

The board ultimately agreed to 25 early voting sites and one day of Sunday voting before the November election. Johnson said the decision was "a significant triumph." Lindley said Johnson's group had no influence on the final outcome.

Guilford's plan also included one restriction that particularly angered Democrats. In the first week of early voting in 2012, residents could vote at 16 sites. This year, that has been reduced to one.

Mary Cranford, 52, a registered Republican, was fourth in line on the first day of early voting in Guilford. She was able to vote but said she was upset that only one site was open for the first week. She said she voted for Clinton this year.

"I can't believe what's been done to keep some people from voting in this state," she said.

Just 7,916 people voted in the first week of early voting in Guilford this year, compared to 60,732 in 2012, according to state elections board records.

The general counsel for Clinton's campaign and other plaintiffs filed a court motion on Oct. 1 demanding Guilford and four other North Carolina counties expand their early voting opportunities. The court denied it, saying that changing the early voting plans “would create logistical difficulties.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKBN12Y0ZY

[DrEvil]

^^Of course it wasn't accurate. You're like the forum poster version of Murphy's law. Anything you can get wrong you will get wrong (Hint: Pennsylvania is not in Russia).

I ignore you too. You don't bother me either.

Jerky
So now we have someone in our midst who thinks Snopes - a website devoted solely to the rigorous investigation of claims in order to determine whether or not they are bullshit - is "the last place to go" to find out whether or not something is bullshit.

Same for you.

*yawn*

Then put me on ignore. You should also apologize for posting blatant disinfo to the board (which you could have found out with literally five seconds of research) and not just shrug and say "hey, I'm not sure". You keep polluting the board with garbage and you never own up to it. It's cowardly.

[backtoiam]

People make mistakes.

[backtoiam]

Here ya go. This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz congressional district so at least I probably got the country right this time.

Florida Election Officials Caught Filling Out Absentee Ballots, Affidavit Alleges #FloridaFraud

November 4, 2016 B

Florida voters have complained that they have not been receiving their requested absentee ballots. We may now know the reason why. According to a former Secretary of Elections Department employee, there is a secret room where Democrat insiders fill out those absentee ballots.

The woman provided her sworn testimony via affidavit.

You can read the affadavit here.
http://6889-presscdn-0-68.pagely.netdna ... idavit.pdf

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/04 ... ridafraud/

[norton ash]

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/04 ... ridafraud/

Oh, yeah, Danger and Play is a very fine he-man woman-hater alt-right site. More quality stuff, from BTIA, our favourite 'people make mistakes' truth-seeker.

[seemslikeadream]

[backtoiam]

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/04 ... ridafraud/

Oh, yeah, Danger and Play is a very fine he-man woman-hater alt-right site. More quality stuff, from BTIA, our favourite 'people make mistakes' truth-seeker.

google it. take your pick of sites. its all over the internet. here is the problem...it wouldn't matter what site I picked it still wouldn't be good enough and it would be labeled a far right wing nut site because it has information unflattering to the democrats. That is sort of the point of killing the messenger and ignoring the information though right? Right.

Broward County, election fraud, that is the subject matter.

[Iamwhomiam]

Here ya go. This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz congressional district so at least I probably got the country right this time.

Florida Election Officials Caught Filling Out Absentee Ballots, Affidavit Alleges #FloridaFraud

November 4, 2016 B

Florida voters have complained that they have not been receiving their requested absentee ballots. We may now know the reason why. According to a former Secretary of Elections Department employee, there is a secret room where Democrat insiders fill out those absentee ballots.

The woman provided her sworn testimony via affidavit.

You can read the affadavit here.
http://6889-presscdn-0-68.pagely.netdna ... idavit.pdf

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/11/04 ... ridafraud/

10/28 12:11 p.m.: Miami-Dade County election worker arrested for suspected voter fraud

Gladys Coego, a temporary election worker in Miami-Dade County, was arrested Friday after being caught illegally marking ballots, the Miami Herald reported.

Coego, 74, is expected to be charged with two felony counts of illegally marking another person's ballot. Her job required her to open mail-in ballots.

The illegal votes were cast in favor of Miami mayoral candidate Raquel Regalado, a Republican. It's not known how many illegal votes were cast.

Investigators have said Coego hid a black ink pen in her purse, then used it to mark ballots in which the mayoral race had been left blank. They said Coego admitted to what she had done after being caught by a co-worker, but didn't say why.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/election-2016-tracking-reports-voting-problems-across-united-states-n673236

[norton ash]

I Googled 'Broward County, election fraud affidavit'.... Not a single news source I'd ever heard of, just a million little echo-chamber right-wing blogs. Take your circle-jerk elsewhere, please.