Originally Posted by Guest

You don't need a background investigation for a college ID. You do with a gun permit. Duhhhh!!!

You try so hard to insult someone that you don't think. You don't need to have a background check to obtain a college id. You do need to be a student at a college. They do ask you for your high school grades. They do know if you are a foreign student. Who in the hell is going to take part time college courses, so they can vote?

Originally Posted by Guest

You try so hard to insult someone that you don't think. You don't need to have a background check to obtain a college id. You do need to be a student at a college. They do ask you for your high school grades. They do know if you are a foreign student. Who in the hell is going to take part time college courses, so they can vote?

And that makes sense? You don't have to be a citizen to go to college, so what good does a college ID that can easily be copied do as voting ID? Never mind, I can see you were just trying to figure out some way to defend your comment. Really, it's no big deal. Really.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear guest:

Au contraire the astute political pundits Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar et al of The View believe that the ex-president of the NAACP Chapter in Oregon is black and that despite his DNA Bruce Jenner is female. They all have shouted their strong support for their causes. Does anyone need any further proof? They all also acknowledge that the allegation of voter fraud is a conservative conspiracy meant to frustrate the voting process. that's their story and their sticking to it.

Personal Best Regards:

Is this what passes for being open minded, and look at both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion? So, pointing to a few is the justification for condemning the many. Simple solution to a complex problem is the product of a simple mind.

If voter fraud is so wide spread, why aren't more people being charged? If they know that they are registered in two different places, and voted in both place, isn't that an open and shut case?

I heard one Fox interview of a South Carolina government official, The official stated that there were 20,000+ people registered in two places within the state. The Fox interviewed stated, "how can anyone see that the new voter id law isn't necessary?" Wasn't a better question, "how many of these people voted twice?" They know they were registered in two places, and they know, if they voted twice.

So, they know that the registering twice in the same state doesn't pass the swell test. So, what they do, they say that there is voter fraud of people voting in two different states. The implication is that only Democrats vote twice.

Originally Posted by Guest

And that makes sense? You don't have to be a citizen to go to college, so what good does a college ID that can easily be copied do as voting ID? Never mind, I can see you were just trying to figure out some way to defend your comment. Really, it's no big deal. Really.

No you can't see, because you are not looking. Take a good look at the makeup by age of each party. Open you eyes, if that is possible.

Originally Posted by Guest

Unbelievable. The link is on post 21.

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

Because he is a liberal troll and lying is second nature.

Originally Posted by Guest

No you can't see, because you are not looking. Take a good look at the makeup by age of each party. Open you eyes, if that is possible.

You still aren't making sense. Age of both parties? Are you now speaking of age discrimination? I believe you are seeing things that aren't there. Sorry if I sound impatient, but I believe you went way outside of the issue.

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this what passes for being open minded, and look at both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion? So, pointing to a few is the justification for condemning the many. Simple solution to a complex problem is the product of a simple mind.

If voter fraud is so wide spread, why aren't more people being charged? If they know that they are registered in two different places, and voted in both place, isn't that an open and shut case?

I heard one Fox interview of a South Carolina government official, The official stated that there were 20,000+ people registered in two places within the state. The Fox interviewed stated, "how can anyone see that the new voter id law isn't necessary?" Wasn't a better question, "how many of these people voted twice?" They know they were registered in two places, and they know, if they voted twice.

So, they know that the registering twice in the same state doesn't pass the swell test. So, what they do, they say that there is voter fraud of people voting in two different states. The implication is that only Democrats vote twice.

Please supply a link to what you are telling us. Reason for links is to supply context that is real and not yours.

Originally Posted by Guest

We hear a lot about the electoral college, but not much about the modern day influence on that body. This is a good read if you really want to know instead of the shrill yelling !

"The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House."


Now that is the basic premise and most of us already know that, BUT allow for illegal immigrants, voters or not.

"The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”
This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College."


I KNOW that the professional folks working on campaigns are well aware of this but most of us are not.

Many have said illegal immigrants do in fact alter elections and they do even though they cannot vote.

If you read the entire article is does a bit of analysis of 2016 election as well.

Not as exciting as the candidates attacking each other or posters doing the same but this is the work that professional politicians set their attention to.

An who was the last President elected by the electoral college without winning the popular vote?

That shoots down this logic!

Originally Posted by Guest

An who was the last President elected by the electoral college without winning the popular vote?

That shoots down this logic!

You really need to read the article and make sure you understand it before you make remarks like that !! Will save you embarassment !

The article addresses how the population is used and the fact that the definitions used by our founding fathers did not account for illegal immigrants.

Please read it....I do not think it is political...I believe it is a rather interesting article about the college and also an insight into where we are heading in this country in a very fast way

Originally Posted by Guest

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

Aren't we splitting hairs? Of course, the comment didn't hit courts. There was nothing slanderous about it. The Penn. House leader's comment was about the Penn new voter ID laws. The court threw out the new Penn. voter id law. The court knew, who the voter id law, was directed at. The judge didn't need the comment of the house leader to come to his ruling. Post 20, implied that the house leader comment was a one day event, and should have gone away in one day. I didn't imply anything.

So, what the hell did I make up? This isn't directed at you, but take a look at the post right after yours. See what I have to put up with. For some reason known only to him, he must think that name calling bothers me.

Originally Posted by Guest

Aren't we splitting hairs? Of course, the comment didn't hit courts. There was nothing slanderous about it. The Penn. House leader's comment was about the Penn new voter ID laws. The court threw out the new Penn. voter id law. The court knew, who the voter id law, was directed at. The judge didn't need the comment of the house leader to come to his ruling. Post 20, implied that the house leader comment was a one day event, and should have gone away in one day. I didn't imply anything.

So, what the hell did I make up? This isn't directed at you, but take a look at the post right after yours. See what I have to put up with. For some reason known only to him, he must think that name calling bothers me.

Perhaps if you stuck with facts instead of saying that the comment ended up in court which was nothing but a manufactured lie that you told.

People do not normally take kindly to lying.

I know what the court case was about....I know when the aside was said....I know what he meant. YOU combined all of it to make something up which appears to be your way of posting.

Your call...do what you want, but that is why you get grief.

You do not call it a lie....it is, you know..you said something that was not true.....that is called a LIE !

Originally Posted by Guest

Please supply a link to what you are telling us. Reason for links is to supply context that is real and not yours.

What do you want a link to? A brain in your head was put there to be used, and not to parrot someone else. The majority of Republicans on this board their brain is located in the seat of their pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off.

Concerning the comment about Fox News, I don't watch it on a regular basis. You are going to sit there and tell me not one of the Fox News regular viewers here didn't hear it.

The only thing real about this board is the insistence that anyone that doesn't march lock step with republican views is a liar or a fool. The whole lot of you are worthless. See how easy it is to make fun of people. It takes no talent. All you have to do is be rude.

Originally Posted by Guest

Perhaps if you stuck with facts instead of saying that the comment ended up in court which was nothing but a manufactured lie that you told.

People do not normally take kindly to lying.

I know what the court case was about....I know when the aside was said....I know what he meant. YOU combined all of it to make something up which appears to be your way of posting.

Your call...do what you want, but that is why you get grief.

You do not call it a lie....it is, you know..you said something that was not true.....that is called a LIE !

Where did I say that the comment ended in court? Apparently, I give credit to people that don't have a brain.

Originally Posted by Guest

Where did I say that the comment ended in court? Apparently, I give credit to people that don't have a brain.

Your statement on post 23.....


"Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.