Can we change The Socialist's title to Fraudster in Chief?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Dems in IN convicted on all counts...was not eligible for the IN ballot in 2008.

report further documents that fraud likely tipped the balance (http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/jury-fraud-put-obama-on-08-ballot/) for The Fraudster in Chief nationally...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I knew all along Hillary should have been President!

[sappstuf]

I knew all along Hillary should have been President!

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I knew all along Hillary should have been President!
At least with her running, conservatives stood a better chance to be in the WH.

[cleller]

Lots of criminals with a "D" on their voter registration for sure.

[badger]

This type of thing is the exact way that Democrats are going to lose their control of the Oval Office and Senate. This type of thing sticks with voters.

[Soonerjeepman]

not for the 47% badge, those people do not want to give up their freebies. Sure it MIGHT swing some voters but the majority that voted for obama will use the excuse that everyone does it, which they are pretty correct, they just got caught. The young people of today, that I talk to, don't seem to have those morals. We shall see.

[jkjsooner]

Are you kidding me. There were two cases of fraud on the petition and that should invalidate the entire petition?

If that's the standard we live by then we've never had a valid president.

With hundreds of millions of eligible voters there is going to be fraud. It's simply the law of statistics.

How many people are required to sign a petition to get someone on the ballot in Indiana?


And, Badger, if you don't think that happens on both sides then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Jkj, perhaps if you read the article, you would have the answers to your questions. The Socialist was not eligible for the 2008 election in Indiana and the article also documented fraud across the country in favor of The Socialist.

[SicEmBaylor]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

None. And, for the record, it wouldn't have made much of a difference at this point if it were Romney either.

[yermom]

not for the 47% badge, those people do not want to give up their freebies. Sure it MIGHT swing some voters but the majority that voted for obama will use the excuse that everyone does it, which they are pretty correct, they just got caught. The young people of today, that I talk to, don't seem to have those morals. We shall see.

do you really want to keep bringing up that number?

[olevetonahill]

So does this mean we get a Mulligan?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This type of thing is the exact way that Democrats are going to lose their control of the Oval Office and Senate. This type of thing sticks with voters.Not all those who are low information types, and have been conditioned by the MSM that all republicans are evil capitalist thieves who feed your gramma dog food and actually don't want illegals to vote. Nor will all those who just want the govt. to play santa claus with the money they get from taxpayers.

[Soonerjeepman]

do you really want to keep bringing up that number?

ok the 52% that voted for obama...better?

[jkjsooner]

Not all those who are low information types, and have been conditioned by the MSM that all republicans are evil capitalist thieves who feed your gramma dog food and actually don't want illegals to vote. Nor will all those who just want the govt. to play santa claus with the money they get from taxpayers.

It's not about illegals. Both sides know the true story.

The fear is that democrats (especially those on the poor end of the spectrum) are more likely to not have a government ID than republicans.

Both sides understand this. Neither want to say it directly. It's not exactly an endorsement of this segment of the Democratic base. As for Republicans they don't want to be seen as systematically denying the vote for eligible voters.

Both sides know that this issue isn't really about fraud but instead protecting their own interests.

[jkjsooner]

Jkj, perhaps if you read the article, you would have the answers to your questions. The Socialist was not eligible for the 2008 election in Indiana and the article also documented fraud across the country in favor of The Socialist.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they could have come up with enough signature to get Obama on the ballot. Obama wasn't exactly a borderline candidate.

It would have been a major injustice to deny Obama the ability to be on the ballot after the fact because a couple of criminals committed voter fraud. If you are going to do that you have to do it in time for Obama to get the necessary signatures.

I'm not defending these guys one bit but your assertion that two people falsifying a petition to get Obama on the ballot renders his election invalid is ridiculous.

[Blue]

People calling him a socialist are being too kind. He along w/ Clinton and the Bushes are fascists. Control freaks. This has been going on for too long and it's probably too late to correct course. The govt owns our asses.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they could have come up with enough signature to get Obama on the ballot. Obama wasn't exactly a borderline candidate.

It would have been a major injustice to deny Obama the ability to be on the ballot after the fact because a couple of criminals committed voter fraud. If you are going to do that you have to do it in time for Obama to get the necessary signatures.

I'm not defending these guys one bit but your assertion that two people falsifying a petition to get Obama on the ballot renders his election invalid is ridiculous.

You are delusional! Had the fraud not happened, he would not have been on the indiana ballot. EVIDENCE has been shown that in at least one county he likely would not have had the signatures to be on the ballot. In IN you need to be on all county ballots, as I understand, to be on the statewide ballot. Ole Hillary would have won by default...

[sappstuf]

It's not about illegals. Both sides know the true story.

The fear is that democrats (especially those on the poor end of the spectrum) are more likely to not have a government ID than republicans.

Both sides understand this. Neither want to say it directly. It's not exactly an endorsement of this segment of the Democratic base. As for Republicans they don't want to be seen as systematically denying the vote for eligible voters.

Both sides know that this issue isn't really about fraud but instead protecting their own interests.

That might be the fear and Dems do love their fear, but it has not been born out with the facts. Minority voting went up in Georgia after voter ID laws were passed.

You cannot operate in today's modern society without an ID. Why do Dems wish to keep minorities living in the 1930s?

[olevetonahill]

That might be the fear and Dems do love their fear, but it has not been born out with the facts. Minority voting went up in Georgia after voter ID laws were passed.

You cannot operate in today's modern society without an ID. Why do Dems wish to keep minorities living in the 1930s?

No **** bro, WTF are they afraid of? Hell a Low income Dem. even needs a ****in ID to apply for FOOD STAMPS.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6715611_do-need-apply-food-stamps_.html

[cleller]

The truth is that it is that the ID thing is purely a way to tap the huge amount of illegal residents here. It is easy for non-citizens to register, check out Texas' requirements. It can be done online, with no ID, just a utility bill.

The Dems are also well known for rounding up these illegals and driving them to the polls to vote. That's where the hang-up about ID starts.

[jkjsooner]

You are delusional! Had the fraud not happened, he would not have been on the indiana ballot. EVIDENCE has been shown that in at least one county he likely would not have had the signatures to be on the ballot. In IN you need to be on all county ballots, as I understand, to be on the statewide ballot. Ole Hillary would have won by default...

Read the article. You have to be on the ballot in each congressional district not each county. It appears that these guys were just lazy and didn't want to put the effort into getting real signatures.

How about this. Why don't you run for office. I'll take one of your forms and forge 100 names on it. I'll make sure I tell the other guys to stop collecting names because we're all good. Then when it's past the deadline I'll reveal that I did it and we'll see how you feel.

Obama can't micromanage every congressional district in every state. This should have been uncovered but it should have been done so in time for them to obtain enough real signatures.

You don't think a major candidate like Obama can't get 500 signatures from an entire congressional district?


And, yes, I'd be saying the exact same thing if it happened to Bush or McCain or Romney. To withhold a candidate from a state just because two people committed fraud is a disproportional action. Obviously had Obama been complicit in this then of course that would be an entirely different matter.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rules are rules for a reason. Libtards want to bend and break everyone of them to further their agenda to grasp all the power and control the money in order to control the people.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You cannot operate in today's modern society without an ID. Why do Dems wish to keep minorities living in the 1930s?They just don't want their illegals who vote to have to prove they are citizens and therefore actually eligible to vote. if they didn't have the Media on their side, it would be a big story in the Media. IOW, if the situation was reversed, and illegals tended to vote for republicans, that would be trumpeted all over the Media, and soundly excoriated.

[OU_Sooners75]

And this is why there needs to be voter ID cards with pictures.

If you cannot afford a voter ID card, then most likely you arent voting anyway.

[SicEmBaylor]

Obama can't micromanage every congressional district in every state. This should have been uncovered but it should have been done so in time for them to obtain enough real signatures.

You don't think a major candidate like Obama can't get 500 signatures from an entire congressional district?


Actually, he never has to. No major party candidate has to go through that. In fact, Indiana is the only state I know of with such a bizarre system. In most states, the candidate from either major party is automatically placed on the ballot requiring only a filing fee at the state capitol which is typically paid for by that state's party. The only time signatures really come into play is when you're dealing with someone who either doesn't want to pay a filing fee to get on the ballot OR it's required of third parties who didn't meet the minimum number of votes threshold in the previous election.

Hell, I have run for office and didn't have to get a single signature. I just paid the filing fee which the state party reimbursed to me after the primary. (They reimburse the general nominee but not if you don't make it out of the primary).

Point being -- anyone who is scared the Democrats were running around the country falsifying signatures to get Obama on the ballot is woefully misinformed. This bizarre procedure is unique to rare.

[jkjsooner]

Rules are rules for a reason. Libtards want to bend and break everyone of them to further their agenda to grasp all the power and control the money in order to control the people.

I know rules are rules but I would have said the same thing had this been Bush instead of Obama. I just don't think what many are suggesting is a proportional response to two people committing fraud.

I'd dare say that if this was uncovered and proven in 2008, the courts would have determined the exact same thing. Most likely they would have extended the deadline and required the Obama team to come up with the signatures that they were short of.

When possible the courts try to be fair and giving Indiana to Clinton because of some forged signatures in one congressional district is hardly fair. If for legal reasons the court could not have extended the deadline, I imagine their ruling would have expressed regret that this situation harmed an innocent party (Obama and his supporters who did not forge signatures).

Again, I would have said this had it been Clinton or McCain or Romney or whoever.