"Election integrity"? Not even close.
At least two Racine poll workers involved in an incident where numerous bags full of ballots had their security compromised when the bags were ripped, torn, burst or otherwise damaged on election night signed recall petitions and are refusing to answer questions about the suspicious ballot bags. In the final days of the recount of the recall election in Senate District 21, members of the Racine County Board of Canvass compelled several poll workers to answer questions under oath about the compromised condition of ballot bags from their polling locations. Michael Clark, a chief election inspector at the Caesar Chavez Community Center polling place, and Darlene Farr, another poll worker at the same polling place, both offered testimony that contradicted the testimony of Donna Deuster, Deputy Clerk of the City of Racine and the official tasked with managing election-related activities.
More at the link. I don't think it's a big deal that they signed the recall petitions; 750,000 people did.
But I do think it's a big deal that under-oath testimony is problematic.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Deeper and deeper, all right...
This is what democracy looks like!
Try again, Dad29!
Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence, fella.
Particularly in cases of fraud, which is designed to be un-evident.
Granted that many of the problems result from (D) city clerk training (D) paid-for-a-day "workers."
But there's a helluvalotta smoke, regardless.
"Particularly in cases of fraud, which is designed to be un-evident."
Dad29, you know how ridiculous you sound?
This is YOU--Rampant fraud exists, but we can't detect it, but we can make unfounded accusations all we want as "evidence", but when the truth comes out that there is no fraud to be found, well, it may not be there in the open, but it still has a menacing presence.
The only "smoke" is the one your blowing up everyone's wazoo with the childish notion that in every close election that a Democrat/liberal wins, he/she won through illegal means.
I NEVER claimed that 'Democrats win close elections solely through fraud.'
But you like straw-men; it's the (D) way, after all.
I want Voter ID, like 80% of the country does. Democrats don't. Since they don't, we should look at motives.
Just like cockroaches, the (D) folk hate light.
"I NEVER claimed that 'Democrats win close elections solely through fraud."
Not a straw-man, FACT. Three specific instances on your part making that assertion. The implication is clear.
Your first link is to a post which is about the November election upcoming. Read for meaning....
The second link has no comments from me indicating that Franken won 'solely by fraud', although that is a reasonable argument.
And the third? The opening quote is real. It is exactly what the man said to me. No "assertion" that "close elections are lost solely due to fraud."
Get a remedial reading course. It might help you. I underline "might."
The first link? A clear indication by you that McCain lost two close races due to alleged (D) voter fraud, and that this conduct is expected in 2012 to take place just like 2008. I think YOU should read for meaning. If (D)'s can't win a tight race, then you believe they take them illegally.
The second link? The title. YOUR words. The inference is clear...close elections lost by (R) is due to (D) machinations.
The third link? Again, the title. YOUR words. Very apparent how you feel.
The meaning is clear on your part. Why even lie about it? Guilty conscious?
Just own up to it and be done.
Post a Comment