Officials found guilty in Obama ballot fraud??

[newtothegame]

gee, I wonder if there were any other states involved........:bang:

"
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/?test=latestnews#ixzz2RdaNkgS8


sadly, makes you look back and wonder what if....if he hadnt gotten on those states ballots.....and if there were more states involved.....

But I know, ask the left, voter fraud is insignificant.......
in this case, it would appear Obama got on Indiana's ballot BY FRAUD. Without fraud, wouldnt of.....

:bang:

[mostpost]

gee, I wonder if there were any other states involved........:bang:

"
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/?test=latestnews#ixzz2RdaNkgS8


sadly, makes you look back and wonder what if....if he hadnt gotten on those states ballots.....and if there were more states involved.....

But I know, ask the left, voter fraud is insignificant.......
in this case, it would appear Obama got on Indiana's ballot BY FRAUD. Without fraud, wouldnt of.....

:bang:

To start with, you did notice that it said primary ballot, right? Therefore it had nothing to do with the general election.
Here is another interesting tidbit. Obama and Clinton were the only two candidates on the ballot for the Democrats. Clinton won 38 delegates and Obama won 34. That means that the results had little or nothing to do with Obama winning the nomination. And absolutely nothing to do with who won the general election.

I am wondering why they even did this. Was it because without those forged signatures neither Obama nor Clinton would have been on the ballot. If the purpose was to get Obama on the ballot, then why forge signatures for Clinton. Did Obama need those delegates in order to defeat Clinton at the convention? No, he won the nomination by over two thousand delegates. At the time of the Indiana primary he was already considered a shoo in.

You said you are wondering how many other states this happened in. Well go out and find me some others with proof. Until then it happened in one state and on state only.

[mostpost]

gee, I wonder if there were any other states involved........:bang:

"
A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/?test=latestnews#ixzz2RdaNkgS8


sadly, makes you look back and wonder what if....if he hadnt gotten on those states ballots.....and if there were more states involved.....

But I know, ask the left, voter fraud is insignificant.......
in this case, it would appear Obama got on Indiana's ballot BY FRAUD. Without fraud, wouldnt of.....

:bang:

Try to learn the difference between election fraud and voter fraud. This was election fraud. Yes it was fraud, but I can not figure the benefit. Especially the benefit versus the risk. Obama had enough delegates sewed up by that time that he was going to win the nomination. Seems like Mr. Morgan and Mr. Blythe were just stupid.

[HUSKER55]

that is your opinion. if fraud is prevalent then they wouldn't have been on the ballot.

the point of primary's are to see who gets on the ballot....right?

[Tom]

Why, whenever mostie swoops in like Mighty Mouse whenever the Commander in Disgrace is mentioned, do I think of Mr. Burns?


JD6lN9FEHao

[PaceAdvantage]

Try to learn the difference between election fraud and voter fraud. This was election fraud. Yes it was fraud, but I can not figure the benefit.It almost seems like that since you can't figure the benefit, you're saying there really wasn't a crime... :lol:

[mostpost]

It almost seems like that since you can't figure the benefit, you're saying there really wasn't a crime... :lol:

Not what I said at all. I said I don't understand the motivation, since there was no benefit to the actions. Obama had the nomination pretty much sewed up by the time of the Indiana primary.

[mostpost]

that is your opinion. if fraud is prevalent then they wouldn't have been on the ballot.

the point of primary's are to see who gets on the ballot....right?
On which ballot? The story says that Clinton had enough signatures even without the disputed pages. Obama would have been off the ballot and would have lost 34 delegates. But Obama went into the convention with a lead of over 1000 delegates. So nothing would have changed in regards to who would have been of the general election ballot.

Even if it did, It would not have made any difference. Hillary would have kicked Republican ass in 2008 and 2012, just like Barack did.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not what I said at all. I said I don't understand the motivation, since there was no benefit to the actions. Obama had the nomination pretty much sewed up by the time of the Indiana primary.No reason to bring up the motivation unless you are looking to mitigate the offense.

You guys did the same thing with Benghazi...whether you realize it or not.

And to those reading, NO, I'm not equating a little election fraud to Benghazi or 9/11 for that matter... :rolleyes:

[Capper Al]

that is your opinion. if fraud is prevalent then they wouldn't have been on the ballot.

the point of primary's are to see who gets on the ballot....right?

I love it. This is typical of the righties here. This is their forum. They post the facts and the lefties opinions. :lol:

[Capper Al]

Why, whenever mostie swoops in like Mighty Mouse whenever the Commander in Disgrace is mentioned, do I think of Mr. Burns?


JD6lN9FEHao


Again no substance just digs.

[PaceAdvantage]

I love it. This is typical of the righties here. This is their forum. They post the facts and the lefties opinions. :lol:Everyone is free to post whatever they wish, within the few rules that apply here.

Nobody is preventing the "lefties" from posting whatever rebuttals they wish, and I would hope you would stop with your silliness and implications that this is "our forum" or "your forum" or whatever nonsense of the day that's got you by the short hairs...

[PaceAdvantage]

Again no substance just digs.Cry me a river why don't you. Man up. If you don't like playing in the sandbox, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to read or post in off-topic.

[PaceAdvantage]

Again no substance just digs.And by the way, the very tactic you label a dig at Tom...I don't recall you ever criticizing FantasticDan (a left-leaner if I recall) for doing the same exact thing over and over and over and over and over again in response to many different right-leaning posts...

You say I look the other way when a righty does it...guess what...you look the other way when a lefty does it...

[Capper Al]

It almost seems like that since you can't figure the benefit, you're saying there really wasn't a crime... :lol:

Always attempts to sound reasonable. And from the side that did Watergate, Iran Contra, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sorry, Billy lying about a blow job doesn't compare. And particular issue is within the democratic party itself.

[Capper Al]

Cry me a river why don't you. Man up. If you don't like playing in the sandbox, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to read or post in off-topic.

You can have your cronies dish it out, but you can't take it.

[PaceAdvantage]

You can have your cronies dish it out, but you can't take it.I can take any silly thing you'd like to throw my way.

Like I said, you don't want to listen to what righties have to say, and righties aren't going to change their minds when lefties have something to say.

It's nothing but a giant stalemate in here, with everyone just looking to get in their word.

This whole "crony" thing is making you sound absurd by the way...this whole "you can't take it" as well. How exactly can't I take it?

Have I deleted your posts? Have I deleted mostpost's replies? Exactly how is it that "I can't take it?" See how silly you sound?

[NJ Stinks]

And to those reading, NO, I'm not equating a little election fraud to Benghazi or 9/11 for that matter... :rolleyes:

Thank you for clarifying that. :p :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Thank you for clarifying that. :p :)It's pretty sad that I even have to.

[hcap]

And by the way, the very tactic you label a dig at Tom...I don't recall you ever criticizing FantasticDan (a left-leaner if I recall) for doing the same exact thing over and over and over and over and over again in response to many different right-leaning posts...

You say I look the other way when a righty does it...guess what...you look the other way when a lefty does it...Huh ? You gotta be kidding.
I have to admit that's a chuckle coming from you.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Huh ? You gotta be kidding.
I have to admit that's a chuckle coming from you.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:Kidding about what old pal?

[newtothegame]

To start with, you did notice that it said primary ballot, right? Therefore it had nothing to do with the general election.
Here is another interesting tidbit. Obama and Clinton were the only two candidates on the ballot for the Democrats. Clinton won 38 delegates and Obama won 34. That means that the results had little or nothing to do with Obama winning the nomination. And absolutely nothing to do with who won the general election.

I am wondering why they even did this. Was it because without those forged signatures neither Obama nor Clinton would have been on the ballot. If the purpose was to get Obama on the ballot, then why forge signatures for Clinton. Did Obama need those delegates in order to defeat Clinton at the convention? No, he won the nomination by over two thousand delegates. At the time of the Indiana primary he was already considered a shoo in.

You said you are wondering how many other states this happened in. Well go out and find me some others with proof. Until then it happened in one state and on state only.

lol of course I know it said "primary"...but how does one get to the nomination and ultimately the general?

lol as to one state, that was not the reason for the thread actually.....

You are always on here talking about how fraud is so minimal with the implication being its not worth the time...

Remember how you said there were no such things as Obama Phones??
Amazingly, I posted a huge article on the fraud in the government phone program.......

You say voter fraud doesn't exist...we show you it does....and in this case, not only voter but primary signatures forged to get someone on the ballot (who otherwise) wouldn't of been.....Now I understand even more so why you all on the left don't want any form of verification of for voters. :lol:

Just put up whoever the left wants regardless...and if it doesn't seem to be heading that way, we'll just fix that too.....

But carry on, there is no fraud in our government ( I am really starting to think every department in our government is overcome with fraud)....none what so ever!!! :lol:

[Tom]

You guys need a few of these - what a bunch of sobbers! :lol:

[mostpost]

lol of course I know it said "primary"...but how does one get to the nomination and ultimately the general?

lol as to one state, that was not the reason for the thread actually.....

You are always on here talking about how fraud is so minimal with the implication being its not worth the time...

Remember how you said there were no such things as Obama Phones??
Amazingly, I posted a huge article on the fraud in the government phone program.......

You say voter fraud doesn't exist...we show you it does....and in this case, not only voter but primary signatures forged to get someone on the ballot (who otherwise) wouldn't of been.....Now I understand even more so why you all on the left don't want any form of verification of for voters. :lol:

Just put up whoever the left wants regardless...and if it doesn't seem to be heading that way, we'll just fix that too.....

But carry on, there is no fraud in our government ( I am really starting to think every department in our government is overcome with fraud)....none what so ever!!! :lol:
You just don't get it. What happened in Indiana was not voter fraud. The voters were not involved at all. It was election fraud. Voters' signatures were forged by election officials. If someone forged your signature on a check, would you be charged with forgery? No, you would be as much a victim as the person who took the check as payment for a good or a service.

The kind of voter fraud Republicans keep crying about-the kind they keep passing voter ID laws to combat- is virtually nonexistent. It is also very inefficient. Voting for someone else changes only one vote. Hacking into a computer that is counting the votes changes thousands.

[newtothegame]

You just don't get it. What happened in Indiana was not voter fraud. The voters were not involved at all. It was election fraud. Voters' signatures were forged by election officials. If someone forged your signature on a check, would you be charged with forgery? No, you would be as much a victim as the person who took the check as payment for a good or a service.

The kind of voter fraud Republicans keep crying about-the kind they keep passing voter ID laws to combat- is virtually nonexistent. It is also very inefficient. Voting for someone else changes only one vote. Hacking into a computer that is counting the votes changes thousands.
One of us don't get it......:bang:
I am sure it is you that doesn't get it......
I posted the story to show FRAUD happens. I know it WASNT VOTER FRAUD.
But have posted voter fraud stories in past....posted cell phone (government ) fraud in past.....Posted food stamp fraud in past......Now its election fraud.......
As I said before, this government is overwhelmed with FRAUD, that you say is minimal and in essence, no need to look behind this curtain......

Even when faced with facts, your only reply is...well I don't see the reason as it wouldn't of changed.....yada yada yada......
I wonder if all those people in Indiana feel the same???? but neverind, its only minimal....:lol: