Voter Fraud? Well, Maybe ...

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Soooooo how do the Dumb Democrat Dirtbags get through life without an ID, because a person needs an ID to…..

Get a job

Open a bank account

Rent a place to live

Open a utility account

Buy/Rent a car

Healthcare

Education

Buy a cellphone

Travel

Social security

Receive government benefits…..

Soooooo obviously Dirty Democrats are LIARS and they are committing mass Voter Fraud and violating everyone’s Voting Rights

 

[jknowgood]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

Which is another part of the problem.

Why is that part of the problem? If you are a college student from California and you go to school in New Hampshire should you have to drive to California to vote? Or should you have to vote by mail where your vote doesn't even get counted unless it is a close race?

Yes, you send your vote to the state in which you are registered.

 

[paperview]

Soooooo how do the Dumb Democrat Dirtbags get through life without an ID, because a person needs an ID to…..

Get a job

Open a bank account

Rent a place to live

Open a utility account

Buy/Rent a car

Healthcare

Education

Buy a cellphone

Travel

Social security

Receive government benefits…..

Soooooo obviously Dirty Democrats are LIARS and they are committing mass Voter Fraud and violating everyone’s Voting Rights

What the hell is wrong with you?

Did you even bother to read this thread?

 

[Care4all]

Anyone who thinks that the pantsuit mafia did not try to rig the general election even though it has been proven that they rigged the primary is a fucking idiot.

Clinton supporters are the biggest group of dumbasses on the face of the Earth.

The primary was not rigged. You bought in to the Russian propaganda campaign to convince Bernie voters that it was....

 

[Spare_change]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

"As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people."

You have piss poor information. Pease Military base. Portsmouth.

Piss poor???

Or, maybe you are uninformed.

Pease AFB is a National Guard base - by definition, citizens of New Hampshire. There might - MIGHT - be a dozen active duty personnel stationed there, but I'd be surprised.

And .... yes, i'm aware that while national guard personnel are on duty, they are considered "active duty" - thus, the claim of 3700 "active duty" personnel - but that isn't the question, is it? The question is how many of those personnel are NOT NH residents.

MAYBE you should do your research.

 

[Spare_change]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

 

[jknowgood]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

I am for voter id, something liberals oppose, because it would stop a good bit of fraud.

 

[paperview]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

"As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people."

You have piss poor information. Pease Military base. Portsmouth.

Piss poor???

Or, maybe you are uninformed.

Pease AFB is a National Guard base - by definition, citizens of New Hampshire. There might - MIGHT - be a dozen active duty personnel stationed there, but I'd be surprised.

And .... yes, i'm aware that while national guard personnel are on duty, they are considered "active duty" - thus, the claim of 3700 "active duty" personnel - but that isn't the question, is it? The question is how many of those personnel are NOT NH residents.

MAYBE you should do your research.

You said: "there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. "

That was wrong. So is your estimate of how many people are there.


Pease Air National Guard

 

[paperview]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

I am for voter id, something liberals oppose, because it would stop a good bit of fraud.

NH is a voter ID state.

 

[Spare_change]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

"As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people."

You have piss poor information. Pease Military base. Portsmouth.

Piss poor???

Or, maybe you are uninformed.

Pease AFB is a National Guard base - by definition, citizens of New Hampshire. There might - MIGHT - be a dozen active duty personnel stationed there, but I'd be surprised.

And .... yes, i'm aware that while national guard personnel are on duty, they are considered "active duty" - thus, the claim of 3700 "active duty" personnel - but that isn't the question, is it? The question is how many of those personnel are NOT NH residents.

MAYBE you should do your research.

You said: "there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. "

That was wrong. So is your estimate of how many people are there.


Pease Air National Guard

Oooooh ---- I am SO impressed.

The discussion was about military personnel who DON'T have NH residency, not about the number of military personnel in New Hampshire. Within that context, National Guard personnel can be generally disregarded.

As for your "estimate" comment - I can only think of two things to say.

1) Who the fuck cares, since they are not part of the conversation, and
2) You will notice the "base related" population of 10,000 - including civilians (who must have NH residency) and dependents (who, also, must have NH residency if they wish to drive in NH). (You probably missed the base commander's dachshund in your calculations)

Your comment - while factually accurate - is, simply, bullshit designed to deflect from the context of the discussion.

You MUST be very proud!!

 

[Spare_change]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

I am for voter id, something liberals oppose, because it would stop a good bit of fraud.

NH is a voter ID state.

That's interesting ... how does that correlate to its residency requirement of only one day? What do you need to produce in order to vote if you don't have a NH driver's licence?

 

[paperview]

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

I am for voter id, something liberals oppose, because it would stop a good bit of fraud.

NH is a voter ID state.

That's interesting ... how does that correlate to its residency requirement of only one day? What do you need to produce in order to vote if you don't have a NH driver's licence?

You were provided with that information in the thread, and a link to the sos nh gov site.

If you can't even be bothered to read your own thread, or gather this information yourself, stuff it.

This whole thread of yours is a mess.

 

[Care4all]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

If those votes went to Trump, he would be outraged.

Scurrilous - you assume political division where none exists.

Those of us who wonder if voter fraud exists only want fair and honest elections - let the chips fall where they may.

History however, does suggest that liberals can't afford to lose the illegal votes. Can you tell us why liberals object so stridently to verifying that the voting process is legitimate? If no voter fraud exists, then there is no need for change. If, however, evidence of voter fraud is found, clearly the system needs fixing.

Why are you so opposed, unless of course, you benefit from the sham?

The guy should have kept his opinion to himself, and easily checked to see if there was voter fraud before he mouthed off and lead his right wing followers to speculate and believe there is....

That put it in the center of political posturing to rile the minion troops.

Of course......You can't see that.

AND most importantly, our constitution gives that job to the States to run their own elections and to determine voter fraud, NOT the feds.

 

[Lastamender]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

Don't mess up a good conspiracy theory with a reasonable explanation. They have so little to entertain them now days.

What about Russia?

What about it? The investigation is still pretty fresh, but they will give their report in due time.

The investigation is a joke. You can identify with that, I'd bet.

It's good that you enjoy it. It will last a while longer.

The longer it lasts the worse Democrats, Hillary, Obama, and Comey look. Trump has whipped them already.

 

[LaDexter]

No matter when or where, if an election is investigated, the Dems are busted for cheating... EVERY TIME.

 

[hazlnut]

One of two things is true:

1) You didn't read the article, or:
2) You failed to grasp the argument put forth.

The article is based on a simple set of facts: only 7% of those "same day" voters obtained a driver's license, and only 3% registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. While that, in itself, does not prove voter fraud, it does call into question the same day arrival/vote of over 6,000 voters.

As for the add-on comment, there is a single military base (New Boston AFS) in New Hampshire. It houses about 300 people. Given that most military maintain, and vote, in their original home of record, it would have minimal-to-no influence.

By no means, does the article claim this is proof of voter fraud. But even a committed liberal such as yourself must admit that it does bear scrutiny. - unless, of course, you DON'T want to know the answer.

Why so you use the word arrival?

And how did you get from 3000 to 6000?

Scrutiny? Why? Isn't that the job of New Hampshire election officials and Sec. of State?

 

[hazlnut]

Don't mess up a good conspiracy theory with a reasonable explanation. They have so little to entertain them now days.

What about Russia?

What about it? The investigation is still pretty fresh, but they will give their report in due time.

The investigation is a joke. You can identify with that, I'd bet.

It's good that you enjoy it. It will last a while longer.

The longer it lasts the worse Democrats, Hillary, Obama, and Comey look. Trump has whipped them already.

He lost the popular vote -- not a whip or a trouncing, just an election outcome that would have made most real leaders embrace bipartisanship earlier that the Orange PINO has.

 

[BULLDOG]

Don't mess up a good conspiracy theory with a reasonable explanation. They have so little to entertain them now days.

What about Russia?

What about it? The investigation is still pretty fresh, but they will give their report in due time.

The investigation is a joke. You can identify with that, I'd bet.

It's good that you enjoy it. It will last a while longer.

The longer it lasts the worse Democrats, Hillary, Obama, and Comey look. Trump has whipped them already.

You could be right, but I don't believe that. We will see when they issue their report, won't we? Ohhhh this is exciting.

 

[busybee01]

Anyone who thinks that the pantsuit mafia did not try to rig the general election even though it has been proven that they rigged the primary is a fucking idiot.

Clinton supporters are the biggest group of dumbasses on the face of the Earth.

The Democrat primaries were not rigged. Clinton got the nomination because she got 55% of the primary vote.

 

[busybee01]

I already read about this and there is a HUGE flaw in the argument. New Hampshire doesn't require out of state college students, nor people of professions that are simply there to work short term like doctors doing residency, to get a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote.

Which is another part of the problem.

Why is that part of the problem? If you are a college student from California and you go to school in New Hampshire should you have to drive to California to vote? Or should you have to vote by mail where your vote doesn't even get counted unless it is a close race?

Yes, you send your vote to the state in which you are registered.

College students are likely not registered to vote in their home state. I see no problem with them voting in the state they are currently residing in.