Proof the dead vote for Democrats!

[Dutch Uncle]

In other news: all of the ACTUAL proof of fraud is on the side of the Republicans.

According to the indictments, that appears to be correct. Just more proof that Trumpers are liars, gaslighters and that they project their crimes onto others.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You both committed a felony by impersonating dead people in a political vote. Interesting....you just walked in, signed in and then voted? No one noticed the difference in signatures? Age differences? Sorry, but your story is dubious at best.

Idiot, we don't sign anything. There are NO signatures involved with voting.
Our name, address, and party affiliation are on a printed sheet. No age.

We tell them who we are, no ID required, and they draw a line through the name and address that we give with a pencil and ruler.
That's how we've voted in Massachusetts since my first election, when I was 22, in 1968.
There was no 18 year old vote in 1964.

Why do I bother conversing with you, Taich? Nothing good ever comes of it.
Sometimes it even seems as if my half of the conversation is on one subject and yours is on another.

Why do you bother? Because you just can't stand being aptly challenged on your incessant need to mix your ruminations & opinions with valid, documented facts. Seek therapy on that, because if you make a public statement, people will question or challenge or agree with you by various degrees. Life is funny like that.

Case in point: I know that currently, Most voters in Massachusetts are not required to present identification at the polls. However, first-time voters in federal elections, inactive voters, voters casting provisional ballots, and voters who are asked by a poll worker to provide ID due to reasonable suspicion are required to do so. Valid forms of identification include both photo and non-photo identification https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications/voters-bill-of-rights.htm

What YOU are telling me that in 1968 any joker could just walk into a voting station and say, "Hi, I'm Joe Blow" and the poll worker just said "okey-doke", crossed off the name and you went in to vote under that name.

And then I assume you went to another nearby voting station and voted under your real name....in the same state.

So essentially, you and your wife committed voter fraud...along with God knows how many others....and many others could do so again and again for years. And No one in the state of Massachusetts caught on...especially in the contentious political atmosphere in 1968.

Hmmm!

Oh and I didn't bring up the voting age as it wasn't really pertinent to the discussion. Why you threw it in only makes sense to you. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
See posts #1 and #9. YOU are making the distinctions that just don't logically add up to your subject title.

How is that a contradiction? I've moved three times since my father died and I got snail mail from the Democrat party urging him to contribute and vote. Democrats tried to contact a dead person and get them to vote. The title makes sense. It is you that can't grasp nuisance or inference.

Why do you repeat the SOS as if it's an answer to what I previously pointed out? Hint: it's not.

But to save the reader time in reading your repetitive stalling tactic, let's just apply a little logic and common sense to what you're saying; Your father had been deceased for decades. During that time you've changed addresses 3 times. Then suddenly you receive a Dem party "get out and vote" flyer mailed to your deceased father. Now you hadn't been receiving such notices at each new residence over the years. So AS I SAID BEFORE, the only way you get that notice now is IF you have the same name as your father (without the "junior" suffix) and his name was never removed from the old data bases at your state or local party registration list.

Other than that, you're full of it ... because a name on a flawed mailing list is NOT equal to voter fraud via "dead folk" actually voting. That's it, so please spare us all the usual regurgitated of the SOS.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Why do you bother? Because you just can't stand being aptly challenged on your incessant need to mix your ruminations & opinions with valid, documented facts. Seek therapy on that, because if you make a public statement, people will question or challenge or agree with you by various degrees. Life is funny like that.

Case in point: I know that currently, Most voters in Massachusetts are not required to present identification at the polls. However, first-time voters in federal elections, inactive voters, voters casting provisional ballots, and voters who are asked by a poll worker to provide ID due to reasonable suspicion are required to do so. Valid forms of identification include both photo and non-photo identification https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications/voters-bill-of-rights.htm

What YOU are telling me that in 1968 any joker could just walk into a voting station and say, "Hi, I'm Joe Blow" and the poll worker just said "okey-doke", crossed off the name and you went in to vote under that name.

And then I assume you went to another nearby voting station and voted under your real name....in the same state.

So essentially, you and your wife committed voter fraud...along with God knows how many others....and many others could do so again and again for years. And No one in the state of Massachusetts caught on...especially in the contentious political atmosphere in 1968.

Hmmm!

Oh and I didn't bring up the voting age as it wasn't really pertinent to the discussion. Why you threw it in only makes sense to you. Carry on.

What you described as procedure for first time voters did not exist in 1968.
It was EXACTLY as you described afterward.
And yes, it was voter fraud years later, but it was also fun. Sue me.

The only time I ever signed anything was when when I first registered to vote upon turning 21.
At that time, I was also offered the opportunity to register with a political party so I could vote in primaries.

You remind me of Oom [Uncle Dutch] in one small way, Taich.
You're a circular rather than a linear thinker, including your conclusions in your arguments.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Why do you bother? Because you just can't stand being aptly challenged on your incessant need to mix your ruminations & opinions with valid, documented facts. Seek therapy on that, because if you make a public statement, people will question or challenge or agree with you by various degrees. Life is funny like that.

Case in point: I know that currently, Most voters in Massachusetts are not required to present identification at the polls. However, first-time voters in federal elections, inactive voters, voters casting provisional ballots, and voters who are asked by a poll worker to provide ID due to reasonable suspicion are required to do so. Valid forms of identification include both photo and non-photo identification https://www.sec.state.ma.us/division...-of-rights.htm

What YOU are telling me that in 1968 any joker could just walk into a voting station and say, "Hi, I'm Joe Blow" and the poll worker just said "okey-doke", crossed off the name and you went in to vote under that name.

And then I assume you went to another nearby voting station and voted under your real name....in the same state.

So essentially, you and your wife committed voter fraud...along with God knows how many others....and many others could do so again and again for years. And No one in the state of Massachusetts caught on...especially in the contentious political atmosphere in 1968.

Hmmm!

Oh and I didn't bring up the voting age as it wasn't really pertinent to the discussion. Why you threw it in only makes sense to you. Carry on.

What you described as procedure for first time voters did not exist in 1968.
It was EXACTLY as you described afterward.
And yes, it was voter fraud years later, but it was also fun. Sue me.

The only time I ever signed anything was when when I first registered to vote upon turning 21.
At that time, I was also offered the opportunity to register with a political party so I could vote in primaries.

You remind me of Oom [Uncle Dutch] in one small way, Taich.
You're a circular rather than a linear thinker, including your conclusions in your arguments.

I'll deconstruct your BS one line/paragraph at a time:

1. So you're going to tell me that there was NO registration and NO WAY to verify who was voting in 1968? Because again, that would mean that any yahoo could vote at least twice, using a false name and then their own (providing they weren't stupid enough to vote in the same polling station). And no one caught on for years? Somehow, that dog of yours just won't fly (I know, most people say "hunt".... sue me).

2. What do you mean "years later"? It was voter fraud EVEN THEN, unless you can provide the official ruling that permited ID fraud during an election. "Fun" and "Sue me" are affectations that connotates proud, defiant ignorance rather that a condescending attitude.

3. Yeah, you said that already.....doesn't change the facts regarding the illegality of what you and your significant other cop to doing. Nor does it lend any credibility to your tale.

4. So what? See #3.

5 & 6. Sour grapes from a man who's caught in his on pile of BS. I'm just applying logic and deductive reasoning to the information YOU provide, Nifty old bean. Tough toenails if your blather doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I'll deconstruct your BS one line/paragraph at a time:

1. So you're going to tell me that there was NO registration and NO WAY to verify who was voting in 1968? Because again, that would mean that any yahoo could vote at least twice, using a false name and then their own (providing they weren't stupid enough to vote in the same polling station). And no one caught on for years? Somehow, that dog of yours just won't fly (I know, most people say "hunt".... sue me).

2. What do you mean "years later"? It was voter fraud EVEN THEN, unless you can provide the official ruling that permited ID fraud during an election. "Fun" and "Sue me" are affectations that connotates proud, defiant ignorance rather that a condescending attitude.

3. Yeah, you said that already.....doesn't change the facts regarding the illegality of what you and your significant other cop to doing. Nor does it lend any credibility to your tale.

4. So what? See #3.

5 & 6. Sour grapes from a man who's caught in his on pile of BS. I'm just applying logic and deductive reasoning to the information YOU provide, Nifty old bean. Tough toenails if your blather doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your really are dumber than a bag of pebbles, aren't you, Taich?

1. There certainly were birth certificates and signatures involved in registering.
None of this was confirmed at the polling place.

You gave them your name and address, verbally.
They lined your name off the list and handed you a ballot.
I was there. You weren't. You know jack shit about it.

2. "Years later" means that my parents' registrations took place in the 1930s,
ours took place in the 1960s,
and the fraud too place in the 1990s or perhaps even 2000.
What went misunderstood here was simple use of the English language.

3. Why would I give a fat flying fuck which internet forum characters believe the story and which do not?
I just got a kick out of telling the Reichtards that our version of election fraud was less pernicious than theirs.
This was too nuanced for you to comprehend as well.

As for the rest, I lost interest and stopped reading.


You're a circular thinker.
Anything you say or write is bereft of value in a serious discussion...or even a casual one.
If your intent was to have me waste time, I'll give you a small victory on that one.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I'll deconstruct your BS one line/paragraph at a time:

1. So you're going to tell me that there was NO registration and NO WAY to verify who was voting in 1968? Because again, that would mean that any yahoo could vote at least twice, using a false name and then their own (providing they weren't stupid enough to vote in the same polling station). And no one caught on for years? Somehow, that dog of yours just won't fly (I know, most people say "hunt".... sue me).

2. What do you mean "years later"? It was voter fraud EVEN THEN, unless you can provide the official ruling that permited ID fraud during an election. "Fun" and "Sue me" are affectations that connotates proud, defiant ignorance rather that a condescending attitude.

3. Yeah, you said that already.....doesn't change the facts regarding the illegality of what you and your significant other cop to doing. Nor does it lend any credibility to your tale.

4. So what? See #3.

5 & 6. Sour grapes from a man who's caught in his on pile of BS. I'm just applying logic and deductive reasoning to the information YOU provide, Nifty old bean. Tough toenails if your blather doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your really are dumber than a bag of pebbles, aren't you, Taich?

1. There certainly were birth certificates and signatures involved in registering.
None of this was confirmed at the polling place.

You gave them your name and address, verbally.
They lined your name off the list and handed you a ballot.
I was there. You weren't. You know jack shit about it.

2. "Years later" means that my parents' registrations took place in the 1930s,
ours took place in the 1960s,
and the fraud too place in the 1990s or perhaps even 2000.
What went misunderstood here was simple use of the English language.

3. Why would I give a fat flying fuck which internet forum characters believe the story and which do not?
I just got a kick out of telling the Reichtards that our version of election fraud was less pernicious than theirs.
This was too nuanced for you to comprehend as well.

As for the rest, I lost interest and stopped reading.


You're a circular thinker.
Anything you say or write is bereft of value in a serious discussion...or even a casual one.
If your intent was to have me waste time, I'll give you a small victory on that one.

1. No shyte, Sherlock....this is about the 3rd time you've stated this...and it STILL leads to the conclusion that any jackass can walk in to the poll station, give a name and address and just go vote....no confirmation. That leads to massive voter fraud, as you copped to. And yet in the last 50 years your state has NOT been shown to have massive voter fraud....so your story STILL stinks.

2. So you're so dim witted that you think elaboration somehow is vindication on some level? Newsflash toodles, when you initially stated that you and your spouse voted under your parent's name....THAT'S voter fraud...whether they are alive or dead. Jeezus, get educated on the law and how that works before your fingers hit the keys.

3. More sour grapes from a joker who's pissed because his fanciful tales don't hold up under scrutiny. You didn't lose interest, you just got pissed because you know you can't logically or rationally keep defending your assertions. Grow the fuck up, will ya please? This is an anonymous format....no one in real life knows who you are, so admitting you're wrong won't cause you embarrassment. Here on this site, however, you just come off as an insipidly stubborn crank. You may have the last predictable retort.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

1. No shyte, Sherlock....this is about the 3rd time you've stated this...and it STILL leads to the conclusion that any jackass can walk in to the poll station, give a name and address and just go vote....no confirmation. That leads to massive voter fraud, as you copped to. And yet in the last 50 years your state has NOT been shown to have massive voter fraud....so your story STILL stinks.

2. So you're so dim witted that you think elaboration somehow is vindication on some level? Newsflash toodles, when you initially stated that you and your spouse voted under your parent's name....THAT'S voter fraud...whether they are alive or dead. Jeezus, get educated on the law and how that works before your fingers hit the keys.

3. More sour grapes from a joker who's pissed because his fanciful tales don't hold up under scrutiny. You didn't lose interest, you just got pissed because you know you can't logically or rationally keep defending your assertions. Grow the fuck up, will ya please? This is an anonymous format....no one in real life knows who you are, so admitting you're wrong won't cause you embarrassment. Here on this site, however, you just come off as an insipidly stubborn crank. You may have the last predictable retort.

Again, creating mass exposure to your stupidity, Taich, is obviously your life's only purpose.

I never said or suggested that voting on behalf of my parents wasn't voter fraud.
Rather, I reveled in telling the true story to Reichtards to further infuriate them,
and also to remind them that some fun dead voting is nowhere near as egregious
as their voter suppression efforts.

My state has indeed NOT had massive or even remotely significant voter fraud,
which does less than nothing to refute my story--not to someone capable of linear logic.

The Democrats would win in Massachusetts if I, my wife, and our children never bothered to register to vote. Add my late parents to that list as well.

If this is beyond your comprehension, Taich, how do you turn on your phone or laptop?