Allegations of GOP Election Fraud In North Carolina By Republicans

Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#51
Mr. Rasselas,

Perhaps you should do your research then before posting then.
You made the claim, not me. I'm supposed to research YOUR claims?

As for your second point, it's not illegal for paid democrat operatives names to be on a lot of envelopes, and in fact, large teams of vote collectors were sent out.
But it's not legal to fill out someone else's ballot for them. It's not legal to accept a ballot that isn't sealed.

So if you see small scale fraud in NC, why do you not suspect large scale fraud in California like the democratic organization intended with this law?
I've already said. If someone has taken a large number of strangers' ballots from a neighborhood where they do not live, an investigation is in order.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
14,875
3,694
California
#52
You made the claim, not me. I'm supposed to research YOUR claims?

But it's not legal to fill out someone else's ballot for them. It's not legal to accept a ballot that isn't sealed.

I've already said. If someone has taken a large number of strangers' ballots from a neighborhood where they do not live, an investigation is in order.
Mr. Rasselas,

You are suppose to do your homework. I personally went to the NC Registrar of Voters website to confirm.

And thank you for supporting my point that if you assume those practices you mention occurred on the small scale, why wouldn't you assume it occurred on the large scale in a party run state like California.

With regard to your last point, you are 100% incorrect, as those practices are codified in state law. So why would anybody investigate. Especially since the democrat party is the investigating body.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#53
Mr. Rasselas,

You are suppose to do your homework. I personally went to the NC Registrar of Voters website to confirm.
That's nice.

And thank you for supporting my point that if you assume those practices you mention occurred on the small scale, why wouldn't you assume it occurred on the large scale in a party run state like California.
I wouldn't ASSUME anything. I would point out that the investigation in NC is of people taking unsealed ballots and filing them out themselves, deliberately not returning them, or engaging in fraud by misinforming the voters of their intentions. None of those things has been alleged in California. In fact, Republican operatives expressed admiration for the Democrats' execution of this strategy. The link below is from the San Diego Union-Tribune--not known as a lefty paper.
Did ‘ballot harvesting’ amount to election fraud in California?
There have been no credible reports of “ballot harvesting” being employed illegally or systematically to amount to election fraud. The Associated Press reported that Democrats have scoffed at theories of election fraud, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla was quoted saying that the laws don’t benefit one party over another.

[....]

So did ‘ballot harvesting’ help Democrats win big?
While Ryan’s comments indicate Republicans outside California were caught off guard by the practice, those inside the state said they were not surprised and some even commended Democrats.
“To say we were caught flat-footed by this is just not true,” California GOP spokesman Matt Fleming told Fox News. “We were well aware of this, we even did it ourselves, we pay attention to election laws.”
Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant, told the Chronicle that Democrats used the practice in a “thorough and disciplined” ground game.
“Absolutely, ballot harvesting played a very significant role,” Neugebauer told the Chronicle, adding that “I have a little bit of professional admiration for how well the Democrats executed their plan.”
What is 'ballot harvesting' and how was it used in California elections?

With regard to your last point, you are 100% incorrect, as those practices are codified in state law. So why would anybody investigate. Especially since the democrat party is the investigating body.
What does "codified in state law" mean, exactly? You're saying that state law says it's legal to take someone's ballot from them, fill it out yourself, and then place it in the envelope and seal it? The law specifically says it's okay to do that? I find that difficult to believe.

I agree that it's wrong for one party to so dominate a state's politics as Dems do here in California. But it's been my observation from 15 years of living here that the California GOP can't find its ass with a map and a flashlight. It has the same problem the national GOP is discovering--they can't appeal to a state full of different sorts of people without alienating the one group they've come to depend upon for nearly all their support. So GOP Republicans can win election in very rural counties and San Diego. They can't even win OC anymore. They'll have to find their way out of that pickle, but Prop 187 really set them on a downward course.
 
Last edited:
Likes: steezer
Jan 2014
14,875
3,694
California
#54
That's nice.

I wouldn't ASSUME anything.

What does "codified in state law" mean, exactly? You're saying that state law says it's legal to take someone's ballot from them, fill it out yourself, and then place it in the envelope and seal it? The law specifically says it's okay to do that? I find that difficult to believe.

I agree that it's wrong for one party to so dominate a state's politics as Dems do here in California. But it's been my observation from 15 years of living here that the California GOP can't find its ass with a map and a flashlight. It has the same problem the national GOP is discovering--they can't appeal to a state full of different sorts of people without alienating the one group they've come to depend upon for nearly all their support. So GOP Republicans can win election in very rural counties and San Diego. They can't even win OC anymore. They'll have to find their way out of that pickle, but Prop 187 really set them on a downward course.
Mr. Rasselas,

Exactly, if you think that happened on the small scale in NC, then why wouldn't the same be true in California where the mechanism for fraud are entrenched in state law. Perhaps they couldn't win in OC because the democrat organization mined voters.

I don't know what the rest of the non sequitur is about, so please, stay on subject.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#55
Mr. Rasselas,

Exactly, if you think that happened on the small scale in NC, then why wouldn't the same be true in California where the mechanism for fraud are entrenched in state law. Perhaps they couldn't win in OC because the democrat organization mined voters.
Except that there are credible accusations in NC that are being investigated. In California, the opposite is true. Please see the edit I made to my post above.
I don't know what the rest of the non sequitur is about, so please, stay on subject.
You know exactly what it's about, you coy coquette.
 
Jan 2014
14,875
3,694
California
#56
Except that there are credible accusations in NC that are being investigated. In California, the opposite is true. Please see the edit I made to my post above.
You know exactly what it's about, you coy coquette.
Mr. Rasselas,

In California, why would the democrats who run the government investigate democrat victories? The point is, again, and as always, the system that lead to apparent small scale voter fraud in NC is codified in California state law. It is ridiculous to assume it didn't occur in California.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#58
Mr. Rasselas,

In California, why would the democrats who run the government investigate democrat victories?
For the same reason the situation in NC came to light--because the number of absentee ballots going to one candidate from one area was preternaturally large. This stuff is public information and can be broken down by precinct. If the press or civil society groups pressed them in a very public way to investigate, they'd have to. Why should an Republican president who has appointed a Republican Attorney General while the Republicans hold both houses of Congress--why should such a person see appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate himself and his subordinates and friends? Because of public outcry.
The point is, again, and as always, the system that lead to apparent small scale voter fraud in NC is codified in California state law. It is ridiculous to assume it didn't occur in California.
The scale of things simply means it's more likely they'd get caught.
 
Jan 2014
14,875
3,694
California
#59
For the same reason the situation in NC came to light--because the number of absentee ballots going to one candidate from one area was preternaturally large. This stuff is public information and can be broken down by precinct. If the press or civil society groups pressed them in a very public way to investigate, they'd have to. Why should an Republican president who has appointed a Republican Attorney General while the Republicans hold both houses of Congress--why should such a person see appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate himself and his subordinates and friends? Because of public outcry. The scale of things simply means it's more likely they'd get caught.
Mr. Rasselas,

Except, that democrats in California will not investigate other democrats.

The point is, again, if it happened on the small scale in NC, it is ridiculous to assume it hasn't occurred on the large scale where the mechanisms are state law.
 
Feb 2010
66,977
42,280
valid location
#60
Mr. Rasselas,

Except, that democrats in California will not investigate other democrats.
A claim based entirely on prejudice. No point in arguing with you. Politicians of any stripe will investigate things when sufficient evidence becomes public. It's bad for their political health not to. Plus, few politicians have the discipline of a Roger Stone to obfuscate continually in the hopes that the truth will never come to light.

The point is, again, if it happened on the small scale in NC, it is ridiculous to assume it hasn't occurred on the large scale where the mechanisms are state law.
Actually, it's ridiculous to assume ANYTHING without evidence, particularly when evidence is available. I think we can count on our competitive system of politics and a free press to reveal whatever evidence there is--since it's publicly available.

You can ASSU if you want to. Leave ME out of it.