Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  Mail In Ballots (Page 2)

Post New Topic  
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Mail In Ballots by blackrams
Started on: 08-14-2020 08:53 AM
Replies: 51 (1000 views)
Last post by: Cliff Pennock on 09-02-2020 01:50 AM
rogergarrison
Member
Posts: 49601
From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio
Registered: Apr 99


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 551
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 01:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rogergarrisonSend a Private Message to rogergarrisonEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

Many mail-in ballots are thrown out, due to technicality. Someone forgets to put a signature or address or not on the voter rolls and etc.

Fraud is a Democrat specialty (ends justifies the means). It is the best of both worlds for them. Add those that count and throw out the ones that don't vote for them, but saying it was disqualified, because they couldn't figure out if you wrote a 7 or a 2 on the address bar.


That is why they are pushing hard.


Yep. Theres no way Id trust mail ins. Im sure Democrats have had an expert team working on ways to commit fraud for years now. If they lose, you can bet it will be 2016/ Hillary all over again. Criminals are relentless. She told Biden already to never concede...obviously meaning they will stop at nothing to try to overturn the election. Theyre already making excuses why they would lose.

IP: Logged
jdv
Member
Posts: 754
From: Ocala
Registered: Dec 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 01:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for jdvSend a Private Message to jdvEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I doubt that Voting In Person is any more reliable.

It seems like there whether it's in person or by mail, the procedures and technologies of it are not the same from year to year, in various states.

I also lean towards the notion that neither Donald Trump nor the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, have been focused on improving and safeguarding the integrity of the Voting In Person systems across the nation.


Doesn't the responsibility for voteing happen at the state level.Governor Ron DeSantis fired the head of elections for Broward county as one of his first actions when he took office. Was this because she was a democrat. No she dropped the ball twice in two different elections.

[This message has been edited by jdv (edited 09-01-2020).]

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 05:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
That was two weeks ago when I said that. I was probably thinking "Arby's" instead of Politics. I'm not feeling particularly argumentative today.

Pleased to "meet" you, forum member jdv. It's not a screen name that I've been used to seeing.
IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 19118
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 206
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 07:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Please cite factual information that would lead you to the conclusion concerning in-person voting.

The comment regarding Federal safeguarding of elections is somewhat puzzling, as the elections are organized and managed at the State and Local levels. We do not have a national election, we have multiple State elections for electing our Federal officials.



Ya'know, mr. rinse, I posted this some days ago, but you have not yet addressed my logical and pertinent question.

My thoughts are that you have very little in the way of an attention span, or you just don't want to address something that you have no logical or reasonable response.

It's a up to you at this point. Put up or appear foolish to your dear friends on this Forum.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 08:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
The announcements of the first election results are now so close upon me--that's how I'm feeling about the perceptual continuum that we call "time"--that I think I'd rather just wait until it happens instead of talking more about it here, before it happens.

Here's a trivia question, to help pass the time as we're waiting for the election to reach that first seminal moment of vote counts being reported.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, informally known as the Voter Fraud Commission, was established by President Trump. It featured a "Born On" date (a little nod to Budweiser) of May 11, 2017 and was active until January 3, 2018. It was chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, but Kansas Secretary of State (at the time) Kris Kobach was the commission's day-to-day manager.

Now the question: How many states with a Republican registered office holder at the top of their state's elections and voting bureaucracy ("bureaucracy " is not meant to be taken with any negative connotations in this context) declined--declined entirely, or declined in part--to cooperate with the Voter Fraud Commission's requests for their state's voter registration and other voting and elections-related data?

This would be Secretaries of State at the state level or in some states, it would not be the Secretary of State but some other named office that is responsible for the state's elections and voting rules and processes.

It's a great question (if I do say so myself) and I'm thinking, from the news reports that I remember, that the number is at least one.

I'd have to dig around online myself to determine the answer.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2020).]

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 14134
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 210
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 09:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Covington, TN, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 229
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 10:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The announcements of the first election results are now so close upon me--that's how I'm feeling about the perceptual continuum that we call "time"--that I think I'd rather just wait until it happens instead of talking more about it here, before it happens.

Here's a trivia question, to help pass the time as we're waiting for the election to reach that first seminal moment of vote counts being reported.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, informally known as the Voter Fraud Commission, was established by President Trump. It featured a "Born On" date (a little nod to Budweiser) of May 11, 2017 and was active until January 3, 2018. It was chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, but Kansas Secretary of State (at the time) Kris Kobach was the commission's day-to-day manager.

Now the question: How many states with a Republican registered office holder at the top of their state's elections and voting bureaucracy ("bureaucracy " is not meant to be taken with any negative connotations in this context) declined--declined entirely, or declined in part--to cooperate with the Voter Fraud Commission's requests for their state's voter registration and other voting and elections-related data?

This would be Secretaries of State at the state level or in some states, it would not be the Secretary of State but some other named office that is responsible for the state's elections and voting rules and processes.

It's a great question (if I do say so myself) and I'm thinking, from the news reports that I remember, that the number is at least one.

I'd have to dig around online myself to determine the answer.



I have to ask, do you actually read what you type? Let me guess, you love to have circular discussions by or with yourself?
What ever you were trying to communicate could have been a much more concise sentence. I got bored by the second paragraph.
No offense meant but, if you want people to actually read what you post, be concise and to the point.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-01-2020).]

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 14134
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 210
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 11:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


I have to ask, do you actually read what you type? Let me guess, you love to have circular discussions by or with yourself?
What ever you were trying to communicate could have been a much more concise sentence. I got bored by the second paragraph.
No offense meant but, if you want people to actually read what you post, be concise and to the point.

Rams



It's obviously very difficult to give a direct, concise and coherent answer to a question when someone doesn't want to answer, or can't.

Garrulous gibberish is either intentional obfuscation or a serious communication handicap. Either way, it's not an answer.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-01-2020).]

IP: Logged
olejoedad
Member
Posts: 19118
From: Clarendon Twp., MI
Registered: May 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 206
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 11:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for olejoedadSend a Private Message to olejoedadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The announcements of the first election results are now so close upon me--that's how I'm feeling about the perceptual continuum that we call "time"--that I think I'd rather just wait until it happens instead of talking more about it here, before it happens.

Here's a trivia question, to help pass the time as we're waiting for the election to reach that first seminal moment of vote counts being reported.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, informally known as the Voter Fraud Commission, was established by President Trump. It featured a "Born On" date (a little nod to Budweiser) of May 11, 2017 and was active until January 3, 2018. It was chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, but Kansas Secretary of State (at the time) Kris Kobach was the commission's day-to-day manager.

Now the question: How many states with a Republican registered office holder at the top of their state's elections and voting bureaucracy ("bureaucracy " is not meant to be taken with any negative connotations in this context) declined--declined entirely, or declined in part--to cooperate with the Voter Fraud Commission's requests for their state's voter registration and other voting and elections-related data?

This would be Secretaries of State at the state level or in some states, it would not be the Secretary of State but some other named office that is responsible for the state's elections and voting rules and processes.

It's a great question (if I do say so myself) and I'm thinking, from the news reports that I remember, that the number is at least one.

I'd have to dig around online myself to determine the answer.



So...your answer is 'no, I don't want to answer you but I will deflect to a circumstance that highlights the fact that States run their own elections, and want no interaction with any type of Federal oversight......(proving my point, thank you.)

Your genius is showing.
IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 69835
From: Copperas Cove Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 441
Rate this member

Report this Post09-01-2020 11:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
At least 15 states, as of Oct 2017, denied the commission's request for information.


https://www.businessinsider...e-voter-data-2017-10

Some states were sued by one or more organizations to prevent them from complying and other states could not comply according to their own state laws or state constitutions.
https://www.brennancenter.o...er-file-data-request

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 14134
From: Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 210
Rate this member

Report this Post09-02-2020 12:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Democrats Have Been Trying To Commit Mail-In Ballot Fraud For Over 150 Years



Traveling to Baltimore in the fall of 1864, Orville Wood had no way of knowing he would soon uncover the most elaborate election conspiracy in America's brief history.

Wood was a merchant from Clinton County in the most northeastern corner of New York. As a supporter of President Abraham Lincoln, he was tasked with visiting troops from his hometown to "look after the local ticket."

New York legislators had only established the state's mail-in voting system in April with the intent of ensuring the suffrage of White troops battling the Confederate Army.

The results of the 1864 elections would heavily affect the outcome of the war. Lincoln and his supporters in the National Union Party sought to continue the war and defeat the Confederacy outright. Meanwhile antiwar Democrats, also referred to as Copperheads, looked for an immediate compromise with the Confederate leaders and the end of the abolition movement.

Troops from New York were allowed to authorize individuals back home to cast a vote on their behalf. Along with their mail-in ballots, troops would assign their power of attorney on slips that required four signatures: the voter's, the person authorized as a recipient, a witness to the signed affidavit and a fellow officer. These documents would be sealed in an envelope and shipped back home to be counted in the final vote. This was the process that Orville Wood intended to uphold, he would testify in court later. He quickly found out what a challenge that would be.

Wood arrived at Fort McHenry in Baltimore to visit with the 91st New York Regiment. There, an Army captain suggested that there had been some "checker playing" when it came to the gathering of soldiers' mail-in ballots. These suspicions of fraud were echoed when Wood visited wounded men at the Newton University Hospital. The rumors of wrongdoing led Wood to the office of Moses Ferry in Baltimore.

Ferry had been selected by New York Gov. Horatio Seymour to help oversee the voting process for New York's enlisted men. Seymour had vetoed the initial bill to establish mail-in voting and would go on to run against Ulysses S. Grant in the 1868 presidential election.

Wood masked his suspicions as he entered Ferry's office, portraying himself as a strong supporter of Lincoln's opponent, George McClellan. This was enough to gain Ferry's trust, he testified later.

Ferry told Wood that the votes from New York's 91st Regiment had already been tallied: 400 for McClellan and 11 for Lincoln.

Wood returned to the office later and, following Ferry's instructions, began forging signatures of the 16th New York Cavalry. Meanwhile, a clerk sat across the room signing ballots from the roster of names Wood had brought with him from home. Wood asked to personally deliver these fraudulent ballots, but Ferry said they would have to receive final approval from his colleague in Washington - Edward Donahue Jr.

Donahue soon arrived in Baltimore and met with Wood. It was revealed during this conversation that around 20 co-conspirators were already at work in D.C. to aid in the plot to deliver votes to McClellan. The following day Wood watched as Donahue and his crew formed a sort of assembly line, passing blank papers along to one another to be signed with the names of active enlisted men, wounded and dead soldiers, and officers who never existed.

In addition to operations in D.C. and Baltimore, the scheme extended back to New York. Donahue had received rosters of soldiers from military officials and members of law enforcement. A letter from Gen. J.A. Ferrell read, "Inclosed in this package you will find tickets, also a list of names of the actual residents of Columbia County, now members of the 128th Regiment. With my best wishes for your success."

A letter from Albany Sheriff H. Cromdell offered to send additional men to assist in Baltimore. The letter read, "All is well here, and we are confident of complete success. It is unnecessary to say that all here have entire confidence in your skill and abetting, and hope you like your help."

Also discovered in Ferry's office was a list of around 400 names belonging to sick and wounded soldiers under treatment at a nearby hospital. In reference to the roster, Ferry joked, "Dead or alive, they all had cast a good vote."

Ferry, Donahue, and their fellow conspirators found humor in their work. One accomplice mocked the outcry he expected from abolitionist newspapers following the corruption of the election. The men bragged about their past successes in fixing local elections back home.

Together, the men had shipped crates of fraudulent votes back to New York. But their scheme was over. Wood reported the operation to authorities. Ferry's office was searched, and on the morning of Oct. 27, 1864 - less than two weeks before the election - he and Donahue stood trial before a military commission.

Ferry offered a full confession that same day, even offering up the names of others involved in the scheme. Donahue proved more of a challenge.

Following the first day of the trial, a reporter for the New York Times wrote, "The honest electors of the state of New York have escaped an extensive and fearful fraud, a fraud in keeping with the proclivities of the party in whose behalf it was initiated, but one that, if unexposed might have subverted the honest will of the people and left the state and the nation at the mercy of those who would make peace with rebellion and fellowship with traitors."

Arrests in New York and Washington continued to mount as Donahue returned to trial. Following Wood's damning testimony and supporting evidence, Donahue begged for mercy from the court. He was a young man, newly married, with no previous record. He visibly wilted as he realized the weight of his current situation, no longer expressing the defiance with which he had entered the proceedings.

The judge advocate addressed the tribunal, saying that Donahue had engaged in one of the most gigantic frauds ever attempted in America - "a fraud which, if it shall be successful, will, in my opinion, have produced a disruption of our entire country, and our war for the preservation of the Union will be practically at an end and futile."

In the months following Lincoln's victory - he won 221 electoral votes to McClellan's 21 - anti-abolitionist newspapers attacked his legitimacy, calling the trial another aspect of a conspiracy conducted by the president to ensure his reelection.

The commission that oversaw Ferry and Donahue's trial recommended life in prison for the two men who sought to corrupt the election by mail. The president, who would soon be slain, approved.

https://www.chron.com/news/...to-deny-15507606.php

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-02-2020).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Cliff Pennock
Administrator
Posts: 11804
From: Zandvoort, The Netherlands
Registered: Jan 99


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 699
Rate this member

Report this Post09-02-2020 01:50 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Cliff PennockClick Here to visit Cliff Pennock's HomePageSend a Private Message to Cliff PennockEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Since this thread is turning into a childish name-calling game. I'm closing it. If you want to discuss the subject at hand, do so in a civilized matter.

And a word of warning to all: the new rules state that I will put anyone on probation who is attacking another member. If you can't treat someone with respect, you have no business here on this forum.
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock