Meet The Young Virginia Democrat That Registered 19 Dead People To Vote In Virginia

[candycorn]

I agree but it sure helps identification fraud attempts to be lessened., which the Dems seem to fight tooth and nail.
So, why don't Democratic elected election officials purge the dead from their lists? That would help lessen that fraud.

Well,,,,

30 of the 50 State houses are occupied by Republicans….
Why aren’t they purging?

Again, this has nothing to do with IDs or poll taxes or whatever…totally within their purview as Governor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is always democrats caught cheating, or at least the majority of the time.

Meet The Young Virginia Democrat That Registered 19 Dead People To Vote In Virginia | Zero Hedge

Just yesterday we wrote about an FBI investigation into potential voter fraud in the critical swing state of Virginia after it was revealed that 19 dead people had recently been re-registered to vote (see "FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia"). While the Washington Post caught wind of the investigation, it was not known who was behind the operation...until now.

Meet, Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, and apparently"Lead Organizer" for HarrisonburgVOTES. According to the Daily News-Record, Spieles confessed to re-registering 19 deceased Virginians to vote in the 2016 election cycle.

He didn't register them to VOTE. They can't vote.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well it's also racist for democrats to assume the argument that it's an effort to suppress the minority vote, as if only African Americans are the ones who happen to be poor or homeless. That is just something I don't see. An individual's misfortunes or struggles are not the result of (limited by) that person's particular ethnic group or background. Focusing on the individuals race as opposed to looking at the overall issue, is how the democrats manage to allow racism and division to flourish. Hillary for example, would much rather simply pit one group against another as opposed to addressing the issue, and make it about the deplorables instead. It's what works for democrats, and to be honest Mrs Clinton believes she stands a greater chance of winning that way.

That's because it has worked for them in the past.

Democrats do not unite the country in any way. In fact they are against unity. Democrats believe in dividing Americans into dozens of groups, and then pick and choose which groups they like and which groups are deplorable.

When all else fails, whip out the race card. That's the ace in the hole as far as they are concerned. It doesn't matter what the subject is, make it about race even if race is not really a factor.

 

[jasonnfree]

Everybody should have an i.d. to vote just like you need an i.d. to fly on an airliner.

 

[AntonToo]

That is intellectually weak and stupid position to take.

Enjoy your comfortable bias confirming stay in the rightwing bubble.

I live in a bubble? You're the one who thinks that minorities can't do the same as whites when it comes to getting Voter-ID's. To be honest, there is no explanation for that. Do they have the same two arms, the same two legs, the same ability to see?

I can tell you what Democrats are really upset about when it comes to voting, but you would never accept the honest answer.

Yes living in the bubble, the very definition of avoidance of sources outside your bias confirming rightwinger land.

Read the court's ruling summation then talk to me.

 

[AntonToo]

Once again SIMPLY READ what was established in the case, it's all right there in my link.

Is it really too much to ask? Let me know if it is.

Try answering the question.

I just want you to tell me the truth - you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs in a link on your own.

Admit it and I'll chew it up for you.

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

 

[OKTexas]

Try answering the question.

I just want you to tell me the truth - you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs in a link on your own.

Admit it and I'll chew it up for you.

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There are always registration mistakes. Anyone can easily turn in a registration form for Micky Mouse, but that doesn't mean an actual vote can be cast.

Technically if someone turned in a Micky Mouse registration wouldn't that be fraud?

This guy apparently did 19 dead people, hard to say that isn't anything other than fraud.

Or maybe you need the definition of fraud?

Yet none of the dead people actually cast a vote. That's why we have safeguards to catch stuff like that. They work pretty good too. They caught those 19 just like they

There are always registration mistakes. Anyone can easily turn in a registration form for Micky Mouse, but that doesn't mean an actual vote can be cast.

Unless there is a voter ID law in place, there is nothing to prevent people from claiming the name of the dead registered person in order to vote....get it now?

In your thousands of hours of study, you should have spent a few minutes researching our voting system and it's safeguards.

Dispite current safeguards, voter fraud still manages to occur.

January 12, 2012: Voter Fraud in South Carolina

[South Carolina] State officials are calling for an investigation after records determined that more than 900 people listed as deceased also have recently voted, calling into question the integrity of the state's election system.

(Source)

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

 

[Scorpion]

The dead do indeed speak but we hear them with our noses...and wouldn't ya know it? They vote "demcrat'!!!!
See, this is how the Fabian socialists/communists roll because the ends justifies the means. Any corrupted or dishonest thing that they can do to push their agenda is justified. There are certain things that honest people will simply not stoop to doing....leftards have no such restraints because they justify it.

Speaking of which, I found this today:

Gov. Brown Signs Bill Allowing Felons To Vote In Jail

Why? It's not like they need dem votes in Cali.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why? It's not like they need dem votes in Cali.

Baby steps baby steps. First California, then other states try to do the same without getting the attention of the MSM. Then from local jails to people in prison for minor offenses, then major offenses.

 

[AntonToo]

I just want you to tell me the truth - you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs in a link on your own.

Admit it and I'll chew it up for you.

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Because your question is BESIDES THE POINT.

I don't know why you feel that cutting down voting days is a good thing - AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The overall point about ALL of the changes NC pursued in their voting reform bill stemmed DIRECTLY from what racial statistics showed would be changes that would suppress black turnout. That is not about improving elections, that is not about voting fraud, that is about carving out political advantage by vote suppression and you have not been able to address this.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This below coincides with a previous post concerning the administrations efforts to allow illegal immigrants to vote.


May 29, 2012: Voter Fraud in Florida

Just last month Florida election officials were denied help by the feds to confirm citizenship status (and voter fraud) for an estimated 180,000 illegal immigrants already registered to vote in Florida. That’s 180,000 votes in just one SWING state in an election that is going to boil down to, as Mrs. Obama said, a “few thousand votes.”

According to state records, Florida election officials have determined that massive voter fraud is taking place and that as many as 180,000 non-residents are registered to vote in the sunshine state, and it only came to the attention of state election officials early last year when the state’s DMV turned over a large data-set containing the population’s residency information. Upon sampling the data and running some preliminary checks, officials narrowed their estimate of illegally registered voters to 180,000.

Florida’s Motor Voter Act of 1993 (which most states have some form of) PROHIBITED even asking immigration status when an individual filled out their voter registration form while FAILING to require proof of citizenship. One Naples voter admitted to NBC-2 Tampa reporter Andy Pierrotti that she was not a U.S. Citizen NOR A LEGAL IMMIGRANT – election records show she voted six times in the past eleven years. (Source) and (Source)

 

[OKTexas]

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Because your question is BESIDES THE POINT.

I don't know why you feel that cutting down voting days is a good thing - AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The overall point about ALL of the changes NC pursued in their voting reform bill stemmed DIRECTLY from what racial statistics showed would be changes that would suppress black turnout. That is not about improving elections, that is not about voting fraud, that is about carving out political advantage by vote suppression and you have not been able to address this.

What you have is an appeals court that clearly disagreed with SCOTUS eliminating preclearance so they decided to do it themselves. They overturned the district court, on one hand commending them for their thoroughness and on the other, condemning them for not seeing the forest for the trees. So they basically said the district court got it right, and then reversed them on the appeals court preconceived notions. I suspect if SCOTUS gets another conservative judge it will be overturned, if not the whole country is screwed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is always democrats caught cheating, or at least the majority of the time.

Meet The Young Virginia Democrat That Registered 19 Dead People To Vote In Virginia | Zero Hedge

Just yesterday we wrote about an FBI investigation into potential voter fraud in the critical swing state of Virginia after it was revealed that 19 dead people had recently been re-registered to vote (see "FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia"). While the Washington Post caught wind of the investigation, it was not known who was behind the operation...until now.

Meet, Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, and apparently"Lead Organizer" for HarrisonburgVOTES. According to the Daily News-Record, Spieles confessed to re-registering 19 deceased Virginians to vote in the 2016 election cycle.

The dead do indeed speak but we hear them with our noses...and wouldn't ya know it? They vote "demcrat'!!!!
See, this is how the Fabian socialists/communists roll because the ends justifies the means. Any corrupted or dishonest thing that they can do to push their agenda is justified. There are certain things that honest people will simply not stoop to doing....leftards have no such restraints because they justify it.

The old saying from Democrats: "When I die, bury me in Chicago....so I can remain politically active."

 

[BULLDOG]

I just want you to tell me the truth - you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs in a link on your own.

Admit it and I'll chew it up for you.

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

There are always registration mistakes. Anyone can easily turn in a registration form for Micky Mouse, but that doesn't mean an actual vote can be cast.

Technically if someone turned in a Micky Mouse registration wouldn't that be fraud?

This guy apparently did 19 dead people, hard to say that isn't anything other than fraud.

Or maybe you need the definition of fraud?

Yet none of the dead people actually cast a vote. That's why we have safeguards to catch stuff like that. They work pretty good too. They caught those 19 just like they

There are always registration mistakes. Anyone can easily turn in a registration form for Micky Mouse, but that doesn't mean an actual vote can be cast.

Unless there is a voter ID law in place, there is nothing to prevent people from claiming the name of the dead registered person in order to vote....get it now?

In your thousands of hours of study, you should have spent a few minutes researching our voting system and it's safeguards.

Dispite current safeguards, voter fraud still manages to occur.

January 12, 2012: Voter Fraud in South Carolina

[South Carolina] State officials are calling for an investigation after records determined that more than 900 people listed as deceased also have recently voted, calling into question the integrity of the state's election system.

(Source)

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

 

[Dale Smith]

I read the damn decision, they started with a predetermination that the bill was racist, then found ways to justify it. Something the lower court didn't do. One thing they cited was early voting being reduced. They said blacks tended to vote in greater numbers during the first 7 days of early voting, yet they didn't say why they couldn't continue to do so. Why pay poll workers for 17 days when it appeared that it could be done in 10.

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Technically if someone turned in a Micky Mouse registration wouldn't that be fraud?

This guy apparently did 19 dead people, hard to say that isn't anything other than fraud.

Or maybe you need the definition of fraud?

Yet none of the dead people actually cast a vote. That's why we have safeguards to catch stuff like that. They work pretty good too. They caught those 19 just like they

Unless there is a voter ID law in place, there is nothing to prevent people from claiming the name of the dead registered person in order to vote....get it now?

In your thousands of hours of study, you should have spent a few minutes researching our voting system and it's safeguards.

Dispite current safeguards, voter fraud still manages to occur.

January 12, 2012: Voter Fraud in South Carolina

[South Carolina] State officials are calling for an investigation after records determined that more than 900 people listed as deceased also have recently voted, calling into question the integrity of the state's election system.

(Source)

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

No, but someone can assume their name if there is no way to I.D them...that is my point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great! You read some of it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but decisions on changes didn't flow from budgetary considerations but RACIAL STATISTICS legislature specifically sought.

Court found that legislature looked at ways to surpress heavily democrat-leaning black voting. The changes implemented would ALL be statistically expected to reduce black voter participation.

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Yet none of the dead people actually cast a vote. That's why we have safeguards to catch stuff like that. They work pretty good too. They caught those 19 just like they
In your thousands of hours of study, you should have spent a few minutes researching our voting system and it's safeguards.

Dispite current safeguards, voter fraud still manages to occur.

January 12, 2012: Voter Fraud in South Carolina

[South Carolina] State officials are calling for an investigation after records determined that more than 900 people listed as deceased also have recently voted, calling into question the integrity of the state's election system.

(Source)

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

No, but someone can assume their name if there is no way to I.D them...that is my point.

You have no point other than more conspiracy theories.

 

[Dale Smith]

Not a long reach when it was predetermined to be racist in the first place. Since the court didn't bother to explain why blacks couldn't continue to vote in the first 7 days of early voting, would you care to give it a try?

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Dispite current safeguards, voter fraud still manages to occur.

January 12, 2012: Voter Fraud in South Carolina

[South Carolina] State officials are calling for an investigation after records determined that more than 900 people listed as deceased also have recently voted, calling into question the integrity of the state's election system.

(Source)

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

No, but someone can assume their name if there is no way to I.D them...that is my point.

You have no point other than more conspiracy theories.

You are a brain-dead idiot with an IQ in the low to mid-70's.

 

[BULLDOG]

The ruling rests on EVIDENCE in the case.

And they did explain, and then I RE-explained it again. It not my fault you can't be bothered to consider, or respond to it with something reasonable.

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Your source was from 2012, and the result was an overzealous purging of many valid voters being dropped from the voting rolls.

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

No, but someone can assume their name if there is no way to I.D them...that is my point.

You have no point other than more conspiracy theories.

You are a brain-dead idiot with an IQ in the low to mid-70's.

Did you get that info from the voices in your head?

 

[Dale Smith]

Why are you deflecting and refusing to answer my question?

Voters who are deceased don't have a valid reason to vote. Try linking some sources next time if your information is to be considered credible

No, deceased voters don't have a valid reason to vote, but the living voters who were purged from the rolls did. That's why the court declared the purge to be illegal. This is an old case that was resolved long ago, and it didn't turn out the way you had hoped.

No, but someone can assume their name if there is no way to I.D them...that is my point.

You have no point other than more conspiracy theories.

You are a brain-dead idiot with an IQ in the low to mid-70's.

Did you get that info from the voices in your head?

Ever read a book that had multi-syllable words with no pictures?