You, trying to spread lies, won't change the fact, that voter fraud is almost non existent, and the last real one was perpetrated by GOP in North Carolina.
Izzy... you're rambling a crazy person. I mean sure, that stuff is all vulnerable... but what is your point exactly? "Stopped immediately" Right.... like they are going to stop early voting. I mean Christ almighty... there's only about a trillion reasons why that will never happen. Why even go there? You're spouting off like some kind of nut on a street corner. And wtf are you referring to when you say "electronic voting"? Voting terminals that are networked into a statewide system? Yeah they're vulnerable... but they aren't going away... you're pissing in the wind. There's 150 million registered voters in the US. Try to wrap your brain around the enormity of that number for a minute. Even half that number. All showing up on a Tuesday morning to stuff a ballot box with votes for dozens of various candidates. Yeah that'll go smooth. Sometimes I wonder B1...
This Electronic Voting must be stopped immediately as it is ripe for Democrat fraud. Under the guise of being military friendly, it has the potential to be massively abused. Next step is that Dems will try to increase it to the general population as is stated in the article. This is where Democrat fraud can be made even more rampant than would be possible with just military use. ----Voting needs to be done on election day with the same absentee ballot systems that have been used prior. Dems will do anything to increase opportunites for them to commit massive fraud and steal elections. https://www.businessinsider.com/22-states-that-allow-you-to-vote-online-2016-9/ In 25 states, service members who qualify under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act can submit their ballots via email or through an online portal. Approximately 100,000 service members sent in their ballots electronically in 2016, but cybersecurity experts warn that online voting is susceptible to malware attacks and privacy breaches.
dude, please leave this motherfucker alone. this thread of his is a goldmine of entertainment. he is almost there, soon he is going to share his stories of getting anally probed by alien democrats (not the one from south of the border tho).
As you can see below, the areas, especially Texas where Dems are trying to turn the state blue are full of illegal immigrants. Common sense would then tell you that a vast number of them are likely voting as the state is not as red as it used to be. This must be stopped immediately and illegals need deported now. The future of the country is at hand and we just can't risk losing the country. https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-da...cumented-people-live-houston-dallas-combined/ A new Pew study shows that the majority of the United States’s 11.1 million undocumented people are spread across just twenty metro areas, with Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth cracking the top five areas with the largest undocumented populations. Nearly 1.1 million undocumented people live in Houston and the DFW—about 575,000 in Houston and 475,000 in DFW. That lands the two Texas cities at number three and number four, respectively, on Pew’s list, behind only New York City and Los Angeles. Austin rounds out the bottom of the list with 100,000 undocumented people. The report, which you can read here, shouldn’t come as a surprise to Texans. But it does help put into perspective the potential impact certain policies—particularly Governor Greg Abbott’s war on sanctuary cities and President Donald Trump’s executive actions against immigration—could have on some of Texas’s biggest population centers. Abbott has threatened to punish Texas cities and universities that don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but he had failed to pass legislation that would actually ban sanctuary cities. That may change soon, however. Abbott lashed out at Travis County last month, cutting off more than $1.5 million worth of state grant funds because Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez implemented a policy that limits the cooperation of county jails with federal immigration agencies. And there is currently a bill proposal, SB 4, set to go before the House that would make it possible for state lawmakers to withhold funding from local governments and jurisdictions that have perceived sanctuary policies. At the federal level, Trump has promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, saying throughout his campaign that he would deport as many as three million people. Shortly after he was inaugurated, Trump signed an executive order that broadened the reach of federal immigration agents to conduct more deportations and threatened to defund sanctuary cities. The impact of this executive order has already been felt among undocumented communities in southern California, Arizona, and even Austin, where ICE has reportedly conducted raids this week that have swept up people who had been living and working here for years—the kind of undocumented people who had generally not been primary targets of federal immigration agencies under Barack Obama’s administration.
The only way Texas is not as red as it used to be is because of the fiction that illegals are voting? has noting to do with changing voter demographics from voters in Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio huh... You would stick your dick in a peanut butter jar and then blame the jar for jumping on it since there coudl not be any other plausible explanation.
"Why are conservatives leaving California? Why do liberals keep winning California? Must be illegals"
Donald Trump turned out to be the most transparent and compliant president ever in the face of a special counsel. He encouraged all people attached to him to answer whatever was asked of them, provided over a million documents and never once invoked executive privilege. --Contrast that to how Bill Clinton attempted to play Ken Starr depending on what the meaning of the word is is of course.
https://www.libertyheadlines.com/trump-unprecedented-cooperation/ (Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Unlike President Donald Trump—who never asserted executive privilege even as members of his campaign inner-circle faced jail time—the administration of impeached President Bill Clinton actually took his investigator, Special Counsel Kenneth Starr, to court. Clinton sued Starr repeatedly in order to block access to witnesses like the shady communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal, as well as to overturn criminal convictions of White House associates, according to a May 1998 article from The Washington Post. “While Starr has been criticized by the White House for spending four years and more than $30 million on his investigation, yesterday’s ruling underlines how much of his resources have been absorbed fighting various court challenges,” wrote The Post. Even though Clinton’s effort largely failed in the courtroom, The Post‘s coverage—like much of the media’s coverage at the time—never once raised the specter of a possibility that challenging the special prosecutor would itself warrant accusations of obstruction or arouse suspicion of guilt. Rather, the coverage characterized Starr’s probe as something like a footrace in which hurdles randomly sprung up—or perhaps as an equal clash of forces in which justice happened casually to fall with the prosecutor appointed to investigate the president. “The executive privilege dispute has been one of many legal hurdles erected in Starr’s path as he investigates whether Clinton lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with [White House intern Monica] Lewinsky and asked her to do so as well,” The Post wrote. “But Starr has won a string of victories in recent weeks,” the two-decades-old report continued. “[Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway] Johnson has also sided with Starr by ordering Lewinsky’s first attorney to comply with a subpoena and by rejecting the former White House intern’s claim of a binding immunity agreement with prosecutors.” The newly released Mueller Report delivered the goods some in the current partisan press had hoped for, recounting moments in which Trump put up a strong resistance to the Russian collusion witch hunt. The President used choice profanities to rail out former Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his recusal, and he also attempted to get White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller due to his conflicts of interest. However, both might have seemed reasonable measures to the one person who was acutely aware from the start that no Russian collusion had occurred and that deep-state political forces were, in fact, making an active effort to undermine his presidency. In light of that, the more surprising revelation is the degree to which Trump lent support to the probe, despite his public spectacle of almost daily denunciations. Starr, whose investigation into Clinton resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives for obstruction of justice and perjury, said in a recent Fox News appearance that Trump’s cooperation stood in stark contrast. “For the White House counsel to spend 30 hours answering questions of Bob Mueller and his staff is extraordinary, talk about unprecedented,” Starr said. “That’s an unprecedented level of cooperation with a special counsel investigation.” During his Fox News segment, Starr went on to observe that not only did Trump not seek to collude with Russia, but he actively resisted Russian overtures to do so. “I think that will be a big plus sign for President Trump and the integrity of the campaign,” he said.