Yes. I use facts all the time. Thanks for your concern for my immortal soul but the matter of the turnout in St. Lucie county was cleared up sometime ago (double ballots) and I have retracted my complaints about that particular aspect of the recent election (which is still riddled with problems and seeming fraud). If you'll excuse me now I have to go bathe in lake of fire.
It seemed like you ALMOST said "It really is a beautiful thing watching the religious right extremists foam at the mouth about their poor religious freedoms. America has spoken and has said NO to religious freedoms". I mean, in the context and all...
I have you have reported all the incidents when your religious rights were denied. The data is needed to prove the case.
Were you maybe thinking of Philly? There's a similar story out of Philly -- along with an explanation of why it's not necessarily an indication of fraud: http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news/politics/&id=178742021&viewAll=y#more It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch. These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all. "We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia." Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats. Larry Sabato says it's not unusual to see a handful of precincts where Republicans get no votes at all, and gives an example from 2008, answering your McCain question (He does add that the clustering in this case means its worth looking into): Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008. "I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of precincts that didn't cast a vote for Romney," he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added. "Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into," he said. Turning to the "number of votes" question, the 59 divisions account for just 3.5% of the city's precincts, and just 19,605 votes total -- nowhere near enough to have thrown the election. in those 59 divisions ... unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0.... In a city with 1,687 of the ward subsets known as divisions, each with hundreds of voters, 59 is about 3.5 percent of the total. So as I said, even if this turns out to be fraud, it's an isolated incident, and the net effect on the election would be tiny -- a handful of extra votes for Obama. Nowhere near enough to tarnish the election as a whole.
But some people do have the job of going over the results of a national election and you would think that had we found dozens of precincts in which one of the two candidates received a zero percentage of the vote it would have been noted as these sorts of things (one candidate receives nearly every single vote) is more typical of sham elections held in dictatorships. It should be. Why didn't I think of that? What I've called for is an investigation. That's all. And because of the nature of a national election and the problems of an administration investigating itself Congress should get involved. It seems to be widespread throughout sections of Ohio (THE key state, by all pre election accounts). You don't need to cheat everywhere and, in fact, couldn't cheat nationwide. But in an extremely tight contest what if you target a few select regions? Again, investigation is what I'm calling for. I'm not interested in administrative mistakes or anything else o a non illegal nature http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html I feel confident this is a bank robbery.
No other President since FDR has been re-elected with unemployment as high as what has been under Obama's administration. People can say that the Christian right is finished...but the reality is the Democrat electorate is full of social entitlement cases afraid to lose their government benefits.
You say the above. And then you say the below: Pick one. Either you are merely calling for an investigation, or you are declaring that you think this is fraud before any investigation occurs.
There's no need to pick one. It's both. Here's an analogy: You show up at Nicole Brown Simpson's house minutes after OJ has nearly decapitated her. You are sure a horrid act has taken place (blood everywhere, a lifeless body lying inside). You think the cops should show up and conduct an investigation. Now think of the election: You know that fraud has taken place purely from statistically anomalous results over wide spread precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania, among other swing states (99.8% across 44 separate Cleveland precincts for Obama, for instance). It's time for an investigation to see how wide spread this is and if it tipped the election. It's both!
I'm not talking about a single isolated precinct or two here or there. In Cleveland, for example, Obama received nearly 100% of the vote (99.8%) in 44 separate precincts! That's what we saw in the old Soviet Union! Such a vote, over such an extended area, is virtually impossible, especially considering the total number of popular votes for Obama and Romney were nearly even (Obama won by two percentage points of the popular vote). Your rationalization doesn't explain this away.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/OH#president The Ohio margin of victory for Obama? A mere two percentage points, 50-48. Yet in precinct after precinct Romney fails to gain even ONE percent of the vote? This is statistically impossible. In 59 Philadelphia voting precincts Romney did not receive ONE SINGLE VOTE! This is hardly a "handful" of precincts.
No, it's not. Why would you say that? Precincts are the tiny, tiny bits that make up the state. It's perfectly reasonable to expect there to be precincts where one candidate, even the one who ends up winning statewide, gets less than 1% of the vote. Yes it is, when you consider that there are more than 1,600 precincts in Philly. Those 59 precincts represent just 3.5% of the total in Philly-- and they were precincts that were already expected to go heavily to Obama. And Philly is just one city in a very large state. Those 59 precincts represent a *tiny* share of the total precincts statewide.
The Republican party made a huge mistake when they courted the religious right for votes. The parasites always kill their host and the Pat Robertsons of the country have a stranglehold on them. If they want any type of relevance anymore they need to shake off the AFAs.
As generations move on, if as you say, there are less of them now, then they could do with dying out, altogether. They are an oxymoron. They hold society back, and are pro war, and anti science. If they could, they would turn the US into a theocracy. So, when their time is up on the planet, you naturally hope the next generation do to fall for such folly.
Thanks for the information. But I was already aware. Not really. There is nothing "reasonable" about precinct after precinct giving Romney less than a one percent vote in a state that was nearly even split on the vote overall. Twenty-one precincts in Cleveland alone, as I have posted, gave Romney precisely zero votes. That's right. Not one single vote out of thousands of people that voted there (over 900 thousand registered voters in Cuyahoga county of which these precincts are included). http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/2012/11/10/ohio-vote-totals-for-obama-a-statistical-miracle/ Your idea of reasonableness is a statistical bag of nonsense. Alright! If you think that not one single vote our of thousands cast is "reasonable" then you are more interested in your partisan turf than accuracy and honesty.
That's good, but why the hell are people so insistent on keeping the Republican party around at all? When you have something that's so broken it's unusable the normal thing to do would be to throw it out.
Okay where are you getting this "not one single vote" thing from. All I've read in regards to that is they sampled small SUBsections of wards where there were perhaps 1,000 voters registered and found no Romney votes. They then cherrypicked those subsections across DIFFERENT wards and came up with their "THOUSANDS!!!!" If I went to the south, mid west, rockies, etc and cherrypicked subdivisions of only 1,000 registered voters I'm sure I would find places where Obama didn't win any votes. How come we don't have 10 threads about that?
Here: http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_bo...s2012/11062012UnofficialResultsbyPrecinct.HTM If you doubt it's easy enough to look up the truth. That's what I did.
Sure there is, when those precincts are in heavily Democratic, heavily black areas. There are more than a thousand precincts in Cleveland alone. 21 of the most heavily Democratic, black precincts giving zero to Romney is simply not that far out of line. I've already said it should be looked a, so don't talk about me not being interested in accuracy. But this might interest you: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/ As is often the case, the reality is less salacious than the conspiracy theory - a consequence of demography, not electoral shenanigans. Most big cities are heavily Democratic to begin with, and geographic patterns of racial segregation may yield an even more one-sided electoral result in certain areas than in the city as a whole. Obama's dominance was mostly confined to largely African-American areas of West and North Philadelphia. In the third division of Philadelphia's 28th Ward, for example, 94 percent of the residents are black, and the 2010 census recorded only seven white residents. Voter registration lists showed only 12 registered Republicans in the division, none of whom voted for Romney or responded to the Inquirer's requests for comment. When there's only 12 registered Republicans to begin with, it's not that hard to see how Romney got zero votes, especially with Gary Johnson on the ballot. And you asked about previous elections. Well, here it is: And the outcome is not at all out of step with recent history - in 2008, 57 divisions in Philadelphia returned zero votes for then-GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. And in 2004, a more Republican-friendly election year, five Philadelphia divisions shut out former President George W. Bush entirely. Ready to back off the "it must be fraud" line, concede it might very well not be, and wait for the results of further scrutiny?
So ALL blacks vote exactly alike? Is that your claim? There is not one single black voter...a contrarian, a societal misfit, a malcontent, a Herman Cain backer, a long time covert conservative...there is NOT ONE out of thousands that steps out of line in the privacy of the voting booth? Not even when exit polls showed that 4% of blacks supported Romney? What you claim is a statistical impossibility and an offense against common sense and clear thought. This is a waste of band width. In "the third division of the 28th Ward" (however many people that represents, not many I'd guess) you can find true statistical anomalies like this but the longer zero trends for Romney like this go on the more mathematically absurd your stance becomes. Not one single person out of thousands? Not likely. In fact it's virtually impossible given human nature and what exit polls show. Five divisions I can believe. Fifty-seven I cannot. Especially in a city where Black Panthers patrolled polling places and judge appointed monitors, just this election, were simply and illegally excluded. By the way, Bush was not running against Obama. But McCain was and because fraud was likely the cause of anomalous results in the last election there is no reason to assume fraud is not being perpetrated again
Oddly enough, the rise of the Christian right and how it would infect the political process was adequately predicted by a true conservative, Goldwater. "I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process." "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others" "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right." "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass." Personally, I am of the opinion the Christian right got kicked in the 'nads this election cycle. They were forced to vote for a Mormon, a centrist, and a guy who has at times been diametrically opposed to the Christian right on such issues as abortion. The founders of this country knew the dangers of mixing politics and religion. "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." It seems to me the religious right has done nothing other than try to impose their principles, their interpretation of church doctrine, in the government and onto the lives of others. I don;t think it was ever the intent of this country's founding documents to regulate based on religious beliefs.
No. But when a candidate gets 98% of the black vote, and a similarly high percentage of the Democratic vote, it's simply not that surprising when you get the *entire* vote in a few precincts that are 100% black and Democratic. Just like it wouldn't be that that surprising to see Romney get 100% of the vote in some deep-red, all-white precincts. You're getting pretty silly now. This started out as a claim of fraud the size of which might tarnish the election. We're now down to wondering why an isolated voter here or there didn't cross party lines to vote Romney. you're talking a county where there are just *12* registered Republicans. Given the links you've provided about lags in updating voter rolls, we don't even know if those 12 people are still in the precinct. Then, we don't know how many of them actually voted anyway. Then we don't know how many voted for Gary Johnson, or split their ticket and voted for Obama. No matter how you slice it, we've gone from "massive voter fraud" to "what did those 12 voters do?" Give me a break. Regarding your math about blacks: Those 4% (or 2%) of blacks aren't distributed evenly. There are places where Romney will get more than 2% of the black vote. By simple math, that means there are places where he will get less. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of precincts around the country, it is not surprising when a handful of the most deeply blue and black precincts give zero votes to Romney. That's simply not true. You need a better understanding of statistics. A precinct giving all of its votes to one candidate ought to be rare, and it is. But it is by non means impossible. Common sense says Obama will get an overwhelming majority of the vote in all-Democrat, all-black districts, and that even if there were fraud in such districts, its impact would be too tiny to be felt, since Obama was going to get almost all those votes anyway. You're cherry-picking all the divisions that are anomalies, then adding them together and pretending it's a significant share of the total. You're ignoring the fact that you're starting with precincts that are *overwhelmingly* black and Democratic. You're ignoring the fact that the precincts represent just 3.5% of all the precincts in Philly, never mind being a too-small-to-notice fraction of the total precincts in the state. Why not? What's so magical about 57? There are nearly 1,700 precincts in Philly. What's so impossible about 57 that are nearly 100% black and Democratic going 100% for Obama? You're questioning the number, but have yet to show an evidence of fraud. Nor have you shown that even the *potential* fraud is significant. If a precinct of 1,000 people has only 12 registered Republicans, I would *expect* that precinct to go 100% Democratic relatively often. Um, one guy at one polling place. And on indication that anyone was intimidated, unlike 2008. GOP monitors across the country had problems gaining access to polling places because they lacked the proper credentials. This was a failure of the Romney campaign, as has been recounted by some of those monitors themselves. They were *properly* excluded from the polling places. Once they obtained the proper credentials, they were allowed in. I show you that this pattern isn't uncommon and has happened in previous elections, and what do you do? Claim that it must mean there was fraud in those elections, too. Again, without evidence. Again, even though shown mathemetical explanations for why such things happen. Why are you so invested in finding fraud, any fraud, even where none exists, and even though you know it's not on a large enough scale to have elected the overall election? I'm all for investigating possible fraud, but I don't start yelling "fraud" until fraud is actually proven.
Then you admit not all blacks vote alike? Great, because I'm not talking about a few precincts! And I've repeated this over and over again. I'm talking about wide spread patterns in key areas of key states! Stop disingenuously framing your argument. No! YOU are talking about a precinct with just 12 republicans in it. That was YOUR example, not mine and I only commented on it, even though it was absurd, because you brought it up. And I already said in such specific isolated instances you may well be right. Is this your idea of an argument? And I haven't provided any links about lags in updating voter rolls, by the way. That's your spin, not mine. Exactly as I've said. This depends entirely on what you mean by a "handful". The more voters you talk about the more statistically and empirically ridiculous it becomes that ONE SINGLE contrarian black would not vote for Romney even though other blacks do not. Well how about 21 precincts then? Because that was the context of my comment..not a single precinct or two. Okay. You are making a different argument now and it makes some sense purely in the context of Obama's win in 2012 only. As I've already said voter fraud is a virtual reality given what we've seen in Ohio and Pennsylvania and this not only tends to deligitimize Obama's administration but it means those people that committed fraud (which you said is too small to matter) are running around free and ready to commit fraud again when the time comes. Again you've switched gears. If voter fraud doesn't matter because Obama was going to win anyway just say so. It wouldn't surprise me given your view on voter i.d.'s. The people engineering this crime should be tracked down and prosecuted and all of the swing states should be scrutinized to insure election theft wasn't more wide spread than we already know. How many voters are comprised in 57 Philadelphia precincts? How many thousands? If all blacks think exactly alike and are a monolithic voting block, not even seen in Soviet style dictatorships, then we would expect them to vote all alike. If all blacks are NOT magically identical in their thinking then we would expect at least a few people, out of thousands voting, to go for Romney (the exit polls all back this up, by the way). You are simply insisting on something that cannot be supported. Not in human experience or in statistical analysis. Not a single vote, out of thousands cast, for Romney. Those numbers suggest fraud and call for an investigation. What do you have to worry about? Fraud? And if four percent of blacks did not back Obama how long would you expect it would be before at least one of that four percent would cast a vote for Romney? As the numbers go up it becomes virtually impossible that not even one vote would go to Romney. Can you source this claim please? I've not heard of an outbreak of GOP poll monitors lacking credentials (ahemm) outside of Philadelphia. It's b.s. (your claim, that is). NO. Not exactly. Patterns like this election happened only once before, by your citations, and that was the Obama election in 2008. Quite a coincidence. Fraud will never be proven as long as apologists and disinformation mongers like you obstruct investigations through specious b.s. filled arguments.
If they are not in the government they are not holding anyone back but they do quite the opposite , struggle between the new and the old create new ideas and innovations, we need the backward peoples to propel us forward .
