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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I don't know about other places, but they are trying to stop purging in my state.

Our state government monitors voting activity. If somebody didn't vote in three years, they send a notice to the residents asking to explain their inactions. Either they moved, somebody passed away, or to ill to vote. They send those notices out several times. If voting inactivity is still persists and the state doesn't get a response from their notices, they remove that name from the voter roll.

There is no way to keep track of all the people who died, moved out of state or out of country, became too ill to vote, so that's the only reasonable way to do it. However, liberal courts are trying to stop it so that nobody leaves the voter rolls whether they've been dead ten years or not. So every year, the state has thousands and thousands of new dead people in their voting rolls and it becomes too cumbersome to keep track of all that.

Now if you haven't voted for years, too irresponsible to mail back a questionnaire, then you don't deserve to vote, I'm sorry. Voting must not be that important to you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

There was no purge in the article that showed legal voters being denied their right to vote, and no other link has been offered.

The fact we don't have strict oversight is why these kind of incidents of finding dead voters creeping into voting registrations (and in this case) found to have cast their choice of candidate, becomes a reoccurring problem. What makes it more interesting is I have YET to read such fraudulent deceased voting occurring in support of a republican ticket.

 

[Pop23]

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.

If a dead person can figure out how to register to vote, then I guess all this fuss about some folk not being able to get ID is bull crap!

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Hello? Do facts of the matter interest you at all?

Does it matter that legislature was specifically looking at voter patterns and statistics to instruct their voting reform? Does it matter that they were undertaking what amounts to systematic voter suppression? Do you give any shit at all about these concerns?

From the way you non-respond it really doesn't seem like you do.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Hello? Do facts of the matter interest you at all?

Does it matter that legislature was specifically looking at voter patterns and statistics to instruct their voting reform? Does it matter that they were undertaking what amounts to systematic voter suppression? Do you give any shit at all about these concerns?

From the way you non-respond it really doesn't seem like you do.

Actually no, I don't give a shit. The law effects everyone equally, that is not discriminatory, no matter how many times you or this dip shit court of appeals claim it is. The district court got it right.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Hello? Do facts of the matter interest you at all?

Does it matter that legislature was specifically looking at voter patterns and statistics to instruct their voting reform? Does it matter that they were undertaking what amounts to systematic voter suppression? Do you give any shit at all about these concerns?

From the way you non-respond it really doesn't seem like you do.

Actually no, I don't give a shit. The law effects everyone equally, that is not discriminatory, no matter how many times you or this dip shit court of appeals claim it is. The district court got it right.

...and you just conceded the argument.

You just proved that you don't understand the problem with what SC did and CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND IT, because you got your partisan conclusion and are willing to filter out any fact or reason that contradicts it. Well played sir. BRAVO.

Meanwhile, non-nutter, reasonable people can understand that crafting laws for sole purpose of making voting harder for specific groups is despicable.

Asshole Jim Crow law supporters argued EXACTLY what you argued - that the law is the same for everyone so therefore it is not racist. That requiring land ownership or reading proficiency to vote wasn't racist since everyone had to meet the burden. Well it was racist and you ARE 100% wrong in your argumentation.

Read up and understand the history and what those of the wrong side of it argued, because what you're doing is repeating it.
Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[brummelben]

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.

registering dead people to vote, is NOT voter fraud.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Hello? Do facts of the matter interest you at all?

Does it matter that legislature was specifically looking at voter patterns and statistics to instruct their voting reform? Does it matter that they were undertaking what amounts to systematic voter suppression? Do you give any shit at all about these concerns?

From the way you non-respond it really doesn't seem like you do.

Actually no, I don't give a shit. The law effects everyone equally, that is not discriminatory, no matter how many times you or this dip shit court of appeals claim it is. The district court got it right.

...and you just conceded the argument.

You just proved that you don't understand the problem with what SC did and CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND IT, because you got your partisan conclusion and are willing to filter out anything that contradicts it.

Well played sir.

I conceded nothing, I said your argument doesn't hold water and the district court got it right. The law is perfectly constitutional.

 

[AntonToo]

I conceded nothing, I said your argument doesn't hold water and the district court got it right. The law is perfectly constitutional.

Yep, just like Jim Crow laws were constitutional.

"Hey, everybody's gots to pass the reading exam to vote, so it's definitely not racist!"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, just like Jim Crow laws were constitutional.

"Hey, everybody's gots to pass the reading exam to vote, so it's definitely not racist!"

Much different because not everybody had the same amount of education. But anybody can get a photo ID regardless of race or education.

 

[OKTexas]

I conceded nothing, I said your argument doesn't hold water and the district court got it right. The law is perfectly constitutional.

Yep, just like Jim Crow laws were constitutional.

"Hey, everybody's gots to pass the reading exam to vote, so it's definitely not racist!"

Poor thing, that line is sooooooooooooo 20th century.

 

[AntonToo]

Yep, just like Jim Crow laws were constitutional.

"Hey, everybody's gots to pass the reading exam to vote, so it's definitely not racist!"

Much different because not everybody had the same amount of education. But anybody can get a photo ID regardless of race or education.

First of all, do you now agree that "law applies to everyone so it cannot be racist" is a bad argument? It absolutely can be and WAS.

Secondly, the statistics on the matter are clear, poor people have tougher time getting the right ID. They have to use public transportation because they don't own a car they could just hop into and go get a replacement ID if it gets displaced, they also feel the expense for a new card more. It may seem frivolous, but it isn't considering how abstract and far removed from immediate-self-interest the whole idea of voting is. Most people are reluctant to get to voting place as it is, so even minor obstacles are significant to voter participation.

There is a way to do it right, want ID law? Ok make getting ID easier, by for example providing it for free and organize reach-out programs to communities. Do stuff that makes it seems you ACTUALLY care about voting and are not just politiking.

Thirdly, SC bill was far from being only about ID laws, there were MANY components of it, all of which "surgically targeted black voters".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all, do you now agree that "law applies to everyone so it cannot be racist" is a bad argument? It absolutely can be and WAS.

Secondly, the statistics on the matter are clear, poor people have tougher time getting the right ID. They have to use public transportation because they don't own a car they could just hop into and go get a replacement ID if it gets displaced, they also feel the expense for a new card more. It may seem frivolous, but it isn't considering how abstract and far removed from immediate-self-interest the whole idea of voting is. Most people are reluctant to get to voting place as it is, so even minor obstacles are significant to voter participation.

There is a way to do it right, want ID law? Ok make getting ID easier, by for example providing it for free and organize reach-out programs to communities. Do stuff that makes it seems you ACTUALLY care about voting and are not just politiking.

Thirdly, SC bill was far from being only about ID laws, there were MANY components of it, all of which "surgically targeted black voters".

Believe it or not, you actually touched on the truth.

Let me tell you what this is all about: Democrats hate Voter-ID not because it's racists, not because of the poor, not because of foreigners that came here and became Americans with little or no documentation. The reason they hate Voter-ID is because they know a good percentage of their constituents don't really care about voting.

Without ID, they can drag hobos off the train tracks to vote, give people rides to the polls to vote, go to nursing homes and get people who can't even feed themselves to vote Democrat. But if Democrat voters have to put some effort into voting, they won't vote because again, it's not that important to them.

It's not just ID''s, they made the same claim about early voting. Their voters will not stand in line for a half-hour to vote. They'll just skip it. Sure, if they can just mosey on in, get to a voting table and start blackening out circles at their convenience, yes they will vote. But to wait and vote? Forget about it. They'll just turn around and go home.

We Republicans on the other hand will do anything we can to vote. We will wait in line for an hour if necessary, we will fight the weather here up north, we will go out and get an ID because voting is very important to us.

Instead of Democrats coming out and telling the truth (as if they can) and saying they are concerned about the lazy, they put this idiotic race thing in play to get sympathy. It's a lie as most of us know, but if they told the truth about their real concern, they'd be insulting much of their base.

 

[AntonToo]

Republicans are justified in making voting disproportionally harder for specific groups that vote Democrat, because that weeds out those not commited enough to overcome those obsticles to cast a vote....did I capture the elegance of what you are saying?

 

[AntonToo]

Poor thing, that line is sooooooooooooo 20th century.

Exactly, so why do you say this in 21st?

Actually no, I don't give a shit. The law effects everyone equally, that is not discriminatory, no matter how many times you or this dip shit court of appeals claim it is.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor thing, that line is sooooooooooooo 20th century.

Exactly, so why do you say this in 21st?

Actually no, I don't give a shit. The law effects everyone equally, that is not discriminatory, no matter how many times you or this dip shit court of appeals claim it is.

Because your parties Jim Crow laws are long gone. Even SCOTUS agrees.

 

[Freewill]

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.

registering dead people to vote, is NOT voter fraud.

Certainly is fraud, what else would you call it? Google election fraud.

Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

 

[ColonelAngus]

Register dead people and say that checking ID at the polls is racist.

Libs are funny.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans are justified in making voting disproportionally harder for specific groups that vote Democrat, because that weeds out those not commited enough to overcome those obsticles to cast a vote....did I capture the elegance of what you are saying?

No, not really, because they made it a little more difficult for everybody--not just Democrat voters.

The problem the Democrats have is that their constituents will not go the extra mile to vote like Republicans will. They really don't value the right to vote. If it's not convenient enough, piss on it. They'll stay home and Democrat leaders know this.

 

[AntonToo]

Republicans are justified in making voting disproportionally harder for specific groups that vote Democrat, because that weeds out those not commited enough to overcome those obsticles to cast a vote....did I capture the elegance of what you are saying?

No, not really, because they made it a little more difficult for everybody--not just Democrat voters.

The problem the Democrats have is that their constituents will not go the extra mile to vote like Republicans will. They really don't value the right to vote. If it's not convenient enough, piss on it. They'll stay home and Democrat leaders know this.

1. Like reading test is "more difficulty, but for everyone"? They are equal in law, but not equal burdens with unequal discouragement, in case of SC it is WHY legislature put them in place. They are expected to discourage blacks more.

2. Voting rights are not stipulated by "wanting it bad enough".

If you are going to add hoops to jump for people to exercise their constitutional right to vote, there better be a GOOD REASON.
And just so we are clear - partisan ballot advantage seeking IS NOT A GOOD REASON.