fascinating read....

[callmeslick]

I'd like to point out that just because none of you can image how voter fraud could happen doesn't mean it couldn't or doesn't happen, and just because it hasn't been spotlighted and prosecuted doesn't mean it hasn't happened on a whatever scale. Knowledge of human nature alone--what people are and have been capable of--should cause us to be determined to be sure that voter fraud is an impossibility, not just an improbability that we don't see the need to be worried about. A grass roots effort could conceivably take advantage of any openings/weaknesses that exist in our system, without leaving a smoking gun or an easy trail to pick up on, so the obvious sensible position is to be ever-vigilant to be certain there are none. Now I don't know a great deal about the voting process from area to area, or state to state, but it is my experience that there are blind spots in any system, and without fail where there is a blind spot that can be taken advantage of there are people that will find it and take advantage of it.

Would this same subject be so easily dismissed if it were applied to the superbowl and people could influence the outcome by vote?

a massive dose of the classic, empty, 'what-if' argument. Are you filling in for Will all day today, or is this just a cameo?

[Will Robinson]

Under the newer even less effective monitoring the incidents of fraud are as sure to rise up as theft would be if you removed locks from doors.

Regardless of the effect being noticeable if there is no means to correct..as in deduct the fraudulent vote from the election results...as the new Colorado rules have been set up then the additional fraud is 100% successful.

I think most people reading this know human nature well enough to recognize that if you leave the opportunity out in plain sight like they are the incidents of fraud will increase. The reputation of human nature is notorious in that regard. It makes your claims that This is all guess work completely ludicrous.

And of course the primary goal, that of enabling millions of votes from illegal voters is achieved nicely with the reduction of checks and balances....and that point is taunting you from behind the barely-there smoke screen you are huffing and puffing up.

[Spidey]

Imagine how impractical it would be, hiring people to visit multiple poling places and cast ballots. How many would you have to hire and how many places must they visit before the effect was noticeable?

highlighted the keyword here. As anyone who has worked as a polling official, or party pollwatcher knows,such a move would be blatantly obviously and reported instantly.

Ok fine, just to play devils advocate…

Here in Philadelphia it has been long rumored that people are paid to vote as many times as they can (in a structured fraud system).

It’s done by having people register under different names at as many places as they can…example your residence…your sister…your aunt…and as many other places you can receive the card.

Then on election day you are driven from polling place to polling place by the people working the fraud, and you get paid for each vote.

So here’s the thing…at the polling place all you have to do is sign your name, and possibly show your card…but not always. There is no need for identification whatsoever.

So how is a poll worker supposed to identify a fraudulent vote, and report it post haste as you stated? All that workers knows is…someone on the list, just came in and signed their name and voted.

If the fraud isn’t caught at the point of registration, by cross verifying a person’s actual existence and residence, the fraud works.

So you need to verify that someone named X actually lives at Y to prevent the card from being issued, last time I checked the government can’t do this because they don’t have a comprehensive database that contains this information.

Now as I said…this is all rumor, but is has been rumored for decades, but my point and question is just how is some 75 year old volunteer poll worker supposed to identify this kind of thing?

And to vision and Krom …no it wouldn’t cost very much, there are a lot of desperate people here in Philadelphia, and it’s not really very difficult either.

But let me add this…you don’t hear about this kind of thing much lately, since it’s become just about impossible for a Republican to win an election here anymore.

[callmeslick]

Here in Philadelphia it has been long rumored that people are paid to vote as many times as they can (in a structured fraud system).

It’s done by having people register under different names at as many places as they can…example your residence…your sister…your aunt…and as many other places you can receive the card.

except that it doesn't happen. I've worked the Philly polls, have relatives on my wife's side who are elected officials, and have seen the sausage made. That version simply is pure fiction.

So here’s the thing…at the polling place all you have to do is sign your name, and possibly show your card…but not always. There is no need for identification whatsoever.

but, you can't get registered at more than one polling place per election cycle. As a PA resident, you should know as much. Go ahead, try and get your name listed at two polling places.

[Will Robinson]

Here in Philadelphia it has been long rumored that people are paid to vote as many times as they can (in a structured fraud system).

It’s done by having people register under different names at as many places as they can…example your residence…your sister…your aunt…and as many other places you can receive the card.

except that it doesn't happen. I've worked the Philly polls, have relatives on my wife's side who are elected officials, and have seen the sausage made. That version simply is pure fiction.

So here’s the thing…at the polling place all you have to do is sign your name, and possibly show your card…but not always. There is no need for identification whatsoever.

but, you can't get registered at more than one polling place per election cycle. As a PA resident, you should know as much. Go ahead, try and get your name listed at two polling places.

What part of "different names" do you not understand?

[Will Robinson]

Secretary of State Gessler had futile arguments with Democratic state legislators last year who insisted on ramming a bill through that mandated Colorado become the only state in the nation with both all-mail balloting and same-day registration. Under same-day registration someone can register to vote online, have a mail ballot sent to them, and never physically show up to register or vote. Other places that use same-day registration treat the vote as a provisional ballot pending verification. Colorado immediately counts the vote and there is no way to separate it out if the person who votes is later found ineligible. “We know people in other states with better integrity safeguards have cheated using the cover of these methods,” Gessler told me. A decade ago, Melody Rose, then a liberal professor at Oregon State University, concluded that state’s vote-by-mail system “brings a perpetual risk of systemic fraud” in elections with razor-thin margins.

“Voter fraud is incredibly difficult to detect and prosecute, absent a direct confession,” Gessler says as he notes that in other areas of law-breaking, we do not judge how much of it there is merely by the number of related prosecutions. But he also notes there is evidence of just how easy voter fraud is to commit.

Last December, New York City’s Department of Investigation detailed how its undercover agents claimed at 63 polling places to be individuals who were in fact dead, had moved out of town, or who were in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, they were allowed to vote.

(To avoid skewing results, they voted only for nonexistent write-in candidates.) How did the city’s Board of Elections respond? Did it immediately probe and reform their sloppy procedures? Not at all. It instead demanded that the investigators be prosecuted. Most officials are loath to admit how vulnerable election systems are, but privately many express worry that close elections could be flipped by fraud.

Maybe you wont ignore these points this time....lol...yea, right...

[callmeslick]

completely off topic, but still amusing. We have someone here simply paying people to show up at rallies and now everyone knows it.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/23/ ... -race.html

How, again, will you keep the same from happening with a significant voting scheme? Note that the New York investigation went undetected with a total of less than 100 votes, which wouldn't have even swayed ONE district, were they all cast in a single distict. Had a larger, more widespread scheme been attempted, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. The rolls may get behind, but there are just a limited amount of people whose names can be utilized, and even then, a turnout over a certain historic level triggers investigations in most jurisdictions.

[vision]

Under the newer even less effective monitoring the incidents of fraud are as sure to rise up as theft would be if you removed locks from doors...I think most people reading this know human nature well enough to recognize that if you leave the opportunity out in plain sight like they are the incidents of fraud will increase...And of course the primary goal, that of enabling millions of votes from illegal voters is achieved nicely with the reduction of checks and balances..

Again, voting fraud would be the most cost effective, secure, and reliable to do it without using actual voters but corrupting the system with bribes in important places and/or using electronic manipulation. You know what human nature is? Not giving a ★■◆●. That's why only 1/3 of the population votes. Why don't you complain about how election day isn't a national holiday? That's the bigger problem. Lot of people just can't take the time away from work and family** You know who has time off to vote? Seniors, who on average vote more conservatively.

Why do you think these millions of illegals can take time away from the low wage jobs they stole? Where is the extra time they have away from the illegal kids they have? Why would more than 1/3 of them even vote (remember, human nature means not giving a ★■◆●)? And most importantly, why would all of them vote for the Democratic Party? It is a really bad sign when one party is seen adversely to a huge segment of the population legal status or not.



** Anecdotally, one year I almost didn't make it to the polls. I went in the morning before work but the line was too long and had to leave. My workday + commute was 10 1/2 hours. I skipped dinner to wait in line again and barely made it in the polling place. If I had kids there is no way I would have the time to vote.

[Will Robinson]

You two have failed to challenge the points raised with any substantive counter point.
Instead you both toss up red herrings and then proceed to challenge the tangent that you introduced. None of them relevant to the discussion.

Of course I know why you do this....you have nothing else.

And just in case slick really believes the one attempt he made to be on point. The New York example was investigators making fraudulent votes by way of using registered voters names who were known to not be voting. Nothing was there to stop them from casting a vote for many more. Nothing was able to remove the votes they cast either! There is NO WAY to remove a fraudulent vote. They hit a bunch of precincts to see if they were all vulnerable. 97% of them were. Nothing to stop them from casting more than one vote at each precinct...however many registered voter names they want to use can be a vote cast. Even if the real person shows up later the fraudulent vote stays recorded!

Nothing was there to "stick out like a sore thumb" after the fact because the only history of them was that registered voters supposedly showed up and voted, their names getting checked off of the list, and 97% of the time no one checked the ID to see if they were who they claimed to be!

Your foo is so weak

And vision, people electing not to use the legal right to vote is not the same as an illegal casting a vote he has no right to cast or a citizen casting extra votes. If you don't see the stark difference there then I can't help you.

And not casting a vote is the same result as voting for the winner...you simply increased the value of those who voted for the winner.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'd like to point out that just because none of you can image how voter fraud could happen doesn't mean it couldn't or doesn't happen, and just because it hasn't been spotlighted and prosecuted doesn't mean it hasn't happened on a whatever scale. Knowledge of human nature alone--what people are and have been capable of--should cause us to be determined to be sure that voter fraud is an impossibility, not just an improbability that we don't see the need to be worried about. A grass roots effort could conceivably take advantage of any openings/weaknesses that exist in our system, without leaving a smoking gun or an easy trail to pick up on, so the obvious sensible position is to be ever-vigilant to be certain there are none. Now I don't know a great deal about the voting process from area to area, or state to state, but it is my experience that there are blind spots in any system, and without fail where there is a blind spot that can be taken advantage of there are people that will find it and take advantage of it.

Would this same subject be so easily dismissed if it were applied to the superbowl and people could influence the outcome by vote?

a massive dose of the classic, empty, 'what-if' argument. Are you filling in for Will all day today, or is this just a cameo?

Maybe you're a little over-excited from yelling out protests to Will's arguments to whoever happens to be within ear-shot of your computer, but these are just my opinions, and I feel I'm supplying some much needed ballast to a discussion of the one element of American politics that apparently runs like a swiss watch.

[vision]

You two have failed to challenge the points raised with any substantive counter point.

Do you think it's because (as other people have mentioned) you don't really have a point? No hard data and everything is based on conjecture from spotty news stories. Yes, fraud happens. No, it is not large enough to give one party dominance over the other. Besides, the proof is in the elections. Yes, that many people re-elected Obama. I know that is hard for you to believe, but that was two years ago already so you should try to get over it. Or not. The President's term is 3/4 done.

Also, I think it's cute how you try to be all intellectual and stuff by accusing everyone of using "straw men" and "red herrings" all the time (and often out of context). Seems like every post you reply too lately is littered with some fancy-shmancy sounding pseudo-philosophic babble mixed with hyperbole and dashed with exclamation points. Mildly entertaining I guess. Keep it up!

...I feel I'm supplying some much needed ballast to a discussion of the one element of American politics that apparently runs like a swiss watch.

By stupidly comparing our democracy to the Superbowl?

Would this same subject be so easily dismissed if it were applied to the superbowl and people could influence the outcome by vote?

Say what? How on god's green earth would that even work? Why would a sporting event be influenced by a real-time public vote and how would it attain wold-wide sport status? Kind of defeats the purpose of sport, doesn't it.

[Will Robinson]

You two have failed to challenge the points raised with any substantive counter point.

Do you think it's because (as other people have mentioned) you don't really have a point?

No. I considered that of course because I play Devils advocate with my own position to test it before I post but I clearly have raised some valid points that you are doing your little dance around. So, no, you are wrong, again.
If you wouldn't use the same lame tactics over and over again I wouldn't be repeatedly pointing them out.

[vision]

We have two parties that are virtually identical — both are corrupt. They regularly trade spots in the limelight. The problem isn't voter fraud, it's the lack of choice in a vote.

[woodchip]

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mon ... -election/

Cooperative Congressional Election Study

[callmeslick]

first off, despite the Wash Post header, the blog post was from a VERY partisan group. At least, they do have the integrity to admit(sort of) that their data is horrible(and that is charitable). For starters,and ONLY the first of many alarm bells is:"We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens." Out of a pool of what, 12 million? Nice statistic significance there.

You held off posting to dump this garbage on us, Woody? Welcome back.

[Krom]

I was trying to figure out where they get their percentage numbers from there, like the 6.4% or 2.2%. So far I'm not having too much luck... Depending on the paragraph they claim that there were either 339, 489 or 828 non citizen voters. I get where they figured the 828 at least, they added up the 339 and 489, which for some reason they assumed there were no duplicates...

I have no clue where the adjusted estimates of 21 = 6.4% or 8 = 2.2% numbers come from, since 21 / 6.4 * 100 would mean the original 100% was 328 and 8 / 2.2 * 100 would be from 363. The 11.3% maybe came from 38 out of 339 non-citizens which works out to 11.209% so a sloppy rounding up would make it 11.3%, but for the 2010 numbers to be 13 = 3.5% it would have to be counting from an original 100% of 371 (and not 489). This does not compute.

If you do the math yourself, the 2008 sample was 32,800, and from that 339 were non-citizens, which is roughly 1.03% of the full sample, and from that sub sample 38 voted, which is slightly over 11.2% of the non-citizens. But in 2010 the sample was 55,400 and from that 489 were non-citizens which accounts for 0.88% of the full sample, from that sub sample 13 voted which is roughly 2.65% of the non citizens. But when you count the non-citizen votes against the full sample, they come out to 0.115% in 2008 and 0.023% in 2010...

[Will Robinson]

What relevance is the citizen portion of the sample if you are trying to show the percentage of non citizens who exhibited a particular behavior?

The thing that stands out to me is a small number of non citizens are voting and the percentage small likely due to a detterence that is now rapidly being removed.
Whether it is a small number or a very small number is a moot point because as the detterence is removed the illegal voters will no doubt become more likely to cast a vote.

With the President, half the Congress and pop culture media giving them the *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* why wouldn't they?
11 million here now, very few have been voting, what will the new percentage be? Any form of 'small' is going to be the completely wrong descriptor.

[woodchip]

first off, despite the Wash Post header, the blog post was from a VERY partisan group.

So you are saying that Cooperative Congressional Election Study group is partisan? Kindly shows a link that says so. I couldn't find one.

For starters,and ONLY the first of many alarm bells is:"We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens." Out of a pool of what, 12 million? Nice statistic significance there.

You held off posting to dump this garbage on us, Woody? Welcome back.

So all your links to pollsters are then garbage also. Would you care to guess what the average polling size is for the 200 million that are eligible to vote is?

"There are about 200 million adult or voting-age Americans. But the average poll has a sample size of 1,000 adults."

http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp.htm

So once again slick you post something truly ignorant thinking no one will catch you at it. Good thing I came back so the mentally impoverished don't keep thinking you're the last word on politics.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Say what? How on god's green earth would that even work? Why would a sporting event be influenced by a real-time public vote and how would it attain wold-wide sport status? Kind of defeats the purpose of sport, doesn't it.

I swear you get caught up on the stupidest stuff. Your mind is wasted among people who don't know how to put toothpaste back in the tube...

[vision]

I swear you get caught up on the stupidest stuff.

Hey man, it's not my fault you suck at analogies. But then again you spent your life relating every experience to vague platitudes from a archaic, oft-mistranslated and frequently contradictory religious text. My guess is that your brain no longer thinks straight from all the mental twisting and turning it takes to follow that nonsense. I'm sure you have a "profound" bible quote ready for you next post, so let it fly.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It was pretty obvious it stemmed from a personal vendetta. You're making a fool of yourself.

[callmeslick]

oh, and the data by Woody refute the very idea being put forth by some here. The writers themselves note that 85% or so of the respondants had valid photo ID. I have NO problem with strict policing of the voter rolls as long as you don't eliminate anyone who cannot be proven to be ineligible or deceased or relocated(simply not voting doesn't count). Now, you can't lop the names off first and then demand those removed prove otherwise, as some states(Florida, Georgia) have tried to do, but it is accurate voter rolls and locations that solve what little problems do exist. Putting up barriers on election day itself do not.

[Will Robinson]

Slick how acurate is a voter roll that lets a person add their name to it and cast their vote all on the same day by mail?

Once again you ignore the changes being put in place to remove any kind of effective restriction on non qualified voters coming along and casting a vote.

With the efforts to remove restrictions plus the efforts to provide illegals with any documentation they would need to get through a lame detection process there is very little to stop them.
The same way the effort to let them know down south of the border that the Obama administration was going to allow them in and to stay caused a sudden influx of illegal immigration so to will this new effort to remove any roadblocks to illegals casting fraudulent votes.

[callmeslick]

Slick how acurate is a voter roll that lets a person add their name to it and cast their vote all on the same day by mail?

there is one option you have never heard me support, either. It clearly DOES have issues, unless the individual has to verify some sort of serious information(SS number, address and perhaps a credit or bank card number). The same day registration they had in New Hampshire did require student ID, military ID or drivers license to register(not to vote once registered).

the rest of Wills post was just a rehash of the usual Obama-whine mixed with a little immigrant jealousy and hatred mixed in. Not worth a real response other than disgust.

[woodchip]

oh, and the data by Woody refute the very idea being put forth by some here. The writers themselves note that 85% or so of the respondants had valid photo ID. I have NO problem with strict policing of the voter rolls as long as you don't eliminate anyone who cannot be proven to be ineligible or deceased or relocated(simply not voting doesn't count). Now, you can't lop the names off first and then demand those removed prove otherwise, as some states(Florida, Georgia) have tried to do, but it is accurate voter rolls and locations that solve what little problems do exist. Putting up barriers on election day itself do not.

Well I'm glad to see we are past the garbage comments so I'll try to be less inflammatory. First I'm not sure where the 85% figure comes from because I found this to be compelling:

"We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9414000973

I suppose some of you will try and nay say the findings but if you do, you will have to link your own study refuting my linked study. What you personally think does not matter. To be fair I'm not sure if the study has been peer reviewed or not. Even still you will need to find a contrary study none the less.

[Will Robinson]

Slick how acurate is a voter roll that lets a person add their name to it and cast their vote all on the same day by mail?

there is one option you have never heard me support, either. It clearly DOES have issues, unless the individual has to verify some sort of serious information(SS number, address and perhaps a credit or bank card number). The same day registration they had in New Hampshire did require student ID, military ID or drivers license to register(not to vote once registered).

the rest of Wills post was just a rehash of the usual Obama-whine mixed with a little immigrant jealousy and hatred mixed in. Not worth a real response other than disgust.

So instead of addressing the negative effects of the administrations policy I cited you simply declare that I am just pointing it out because 'I hate Obama'.

How completely convenient that is.

I think ostriches everywhere are going to be envious of the way you so deftly are able to slip your head under the sand and simultaneously spout off indignation with such an arrogant puffed up ego!

Yes, absolutely, anyone pointing out the negative effects of a politicians policy must be a hater if that politician is one you favor. There is just no way the wise lovable slick would have supported a politician that would do anything wrong after all.

I'll have to run off to sensitivity training right away and get my head right for daring to say the emperor has no clothes.

[vision]

The best part about this thread is that it highlights how incredibly out of touch the Republicans are. First off, both sides cheat. If you don't agree you haven't been paying attention. Second, it is hilarious that one party is trying to cry foul because their own cheating doesn't work anymore. Hahaha. Too bad I guess. Maybe get with the times and adopt a more inclusive platform that doesn't exclude women, minorities, and persons with gender differences? After all, why should being "a conservative" have any effect on them (especially that last group)? Is it the view that anyone who isn't a old white male is a drain on society? Probably.

[Spidey]

Stereotyping much?

[CUDA]

Both sides cheat but instead of doing someting about it and stopping the cheating, we'll just keep the status quo. YA that makes sense. NOT

[vision]

Stereotyping much?

Not all stereotypes are exaggerations. Political and media conservatives regularly reinforce this view. So pretentious.

Also, CUDA, cheating will always happen just like gun violence. Voter ID laws will do almost nothing to stop cheating, just like gun laws won't stop criminals from shooting people. Sound like familiar territory? If the Republicans want to win elections they should have better policies. Pretty simple actually.

[CUDA]

Thats an incredibly stupid analogy, you only vote 1 day every 2 years, and its in a controlled environment. so a "vote" would be kind of hard to steal, unlike guns that are in hundreds of thousands of homes allowing thieves much easier access. And voter ID would be equal to an ADT security system. Fool proof? NOPE.......but better then leaving the front door open with the loaded gun sitting on the counter.

Democrats are afraid of voter ID... Why? Because they KNOW there is fraud and it supports their party and they'll do everything they can to garner votes, legal or illegal

[vision]

...a "vote" would be kind of hard to steal...

Perfect! Sounds like the current system is good enough. Thanks!

...unlike guns that are in hundreds of thousands of homes allowing thieves much easier access.

Hmm... sounds like a good argument for gun control.

...but better then leaving the front door open with the loaded gun sitting on the counter.

But you just said a vote is kind of hard to steal? So which is it? Hard or easy like a gun on the counter with an open door?

Democrats are afraid of voter ID...

From what I've seen the Dems have little to be afraid over. You conservatives are totally against gun regulation because it inconveniences honest people and doesn't solve any problems. Voter ID is the same goddamn ★■◆●, but of course it might benefit your party so let's create an imaginary problem of "immigrants" (code for "brown people") who want to drain the system. (Queue "nation of immigrants" and "conservative hypocrisy on military spending" talking points)

[CUDA]

.

[callmeslick]

a bit testy tonight, CUDA? Actually, I read your words and had similar thoughts as Vision expressed. There is a disconnect in your argument.

[Will Robinson]

It isn't an imaginary problem if 11 million illegals who are already here are allowed to cast illegal votes.

That is a real problem that the President and half the Congress are working hard to create, openly and well documented. They gloat about it at fund raisers etc. they talk about it in interviews etc.
It is the end game embodied in the whole campaign to change public perception of calling an illegal immigrant, who clearly by law has no right to vote, into an "undocumented" person who just happens to be some poor soul who was never given the documents he needs...documents that the Democrats are most willing to hand them...as quick as they can get it off the string dangling it from the stick they have been using to lead the illegals to the D plantation.

So please at least have the balls to quit pretending it is just some fantasy/paranoia.
I understand it isn't a problem that your Party faces but it is a real problem with millions of illegal votes about to be cast.
You are simply willing to accept the illegality of the event because it happens to serve your personal desire and you want the comfort of not being associated with the event so you squirm and twist up some lame denial of what is happening.

I'm pretty sure if the illegals were known to vote 2:1 for Repubs you wouldn't be telling the same tale you swear by right now. Yea, pretty sure about that!

[callmeslick]

It isn't an imaginary problem if 11 million illegals who are already here are allowed to cast illegal votes.

how would they, if locales keep ANY control over REGISTRATION?

That is a real problem that the President and half the Congress are working hard to create, openly and well documented. They gloat about it at fund raisers etc. they talk about it in interviews etc.

no, they don't.....that statement is a flagrant lie.

It is the end game embodied in the whole campaign to change public perception of calling an illegal immigrant, who clearly by law has no right to vote, into an "undocumented" person who just happens to be some poor soul who was never given the documents he needs...documents that the Democrats are most willing to hand them...as quick as they can get it off the string dangling it from the stick they have been using to lead the illegals to the D plantation.

more partisan diatribe, with a touch of political paranoia thrown in.

So please at least have the balls to quit pretending it is just some fantasy/paranoia.

if only you could provide a shred of truth to convince us otherwise.......

[vision]

I'm pretty sure if the illegals were known to vote 2:1 for Repubs you wouldn't be telling the same tale you swear by right now. Yea, pretty sure about that!

So tell us again why such a huge part of the population is slanted so heavily toward one party? Doesn't that highlight an extreme failure on the part of the Republicans? I mean, the influx of immigrants isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, high levels of immigration has been a consistent feature of the United States. Wouldn't it be smarter to get in touch with the changing demographics of this country? Seriously, if immigrants prefer the Democratic platform 2:1, and that number is growing, how do Republicans possibly expect to win elections in 10 years? 20 years? 5 years as a permanent resident is all you need for naturalization. Obama has been president for 6. We naturalize over half a million people every year. Do the math. Democrats don't need illegal votes, they only need to sit back and wait.

[Will Robinson]

Pay no attention to this because slick said it never happened. Then again he says that about lots of stuff that is going on

"Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants... Number two, we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters... We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…"

So, if they make the laws unenforceable the votes pour in as soon as the word gets out, just like the word got out to the swarm from South America.
Colorado is already open season right now..just drop a note in the mail!! Hell in theory ISIS can vote in Colorado!
New York is on the bubble....

How many other counties/states? I dont know but the election returns this Nov may be a good indication.

[Will Robinson]

I'm pretty sure if the illegals were known to vote 2:1 for Repubs you wouldn't be telling the same tale you swear by right now. Yea, pretty sure about that!

So tell us again why such a huge part of the population is slanted so heavily toward one party?

Does mob sentiment nullify the law?

[Spidey]

So tell us again why such a huge part of the population is slanted so heavily toward one party? Doesn't that highlight an extreme failure on the part of the Republicans?

Failure to what…pander to every possible sub group?

No, I agree the Republicans are becoming obsolete, it’s time we become a more diverse political system with many more viable parties.

I tell my Hispanic associates that they need a party of their own, all of the time.