Democrats steal Virginia - You're next

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,609
Likes
1,385
Location
RI
All teh conservatives left for other areas that were more conservative instead of staying and fighting. [rofl]

I'm serious. People on NES all the time talk about getting out of X or Y. But what is your fallback position??? Virginia? Kentucky? Leezie-Anna? At some point, you are teh LONE conservative state in a sea of liberals.

Or just stay and fight.

Nah. That's stupid. [rolleyes]
Here's the problem with Mass/RI/CT.

Mass has been a Democrat stronghold since the end of the Coolidge Administration. RI was a battleground state between 1920 and 1956, with the Dems seizing momentum with the Bloodless Revolution in 1935.

The probability of a true conservative majority in these states can't happen again unless you concentrate all the liberals in small urban districts, like what existed in RI until the BR. The Dems had the city but because the state senate was 1 town = 1 senator, the rural, conservative towns held the majority of seats. Then add in suburban sprawl that isn't being reversed: more people are moving into cities and surrounding areas.

I've pretty much accepted staying and fighting in RI unless SHTF or I get a very sweet opportunity that doesn't exist in RI. But SNE isn't going red anytime in the foreseeable future.

What we can do is win small victories and achieve limited, specific goals.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,677
Likes
7,282
Dude, don't form your tinfoil hat so it fits that tightly.
60k illegals/non citizens voting in Texas isnt tin foil......its reality.

Pull your head out of the dark place it resides in.....you're suffering from 02 deprevation
 

blindfire

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
15,529
Likes
3,927
I think it's more the rampant fraud the Dems employ, than simply casting honest votes.
You mean like gerrymandering that the republicans employ? Yea...Dems do it too. But prove that there was fraud. Trump made that claim in 2016 about NH but his own teams investigation found none.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,677
Likes
7,282
You do know that number and claim fell apart spectacularly, right?
It continues to be revised as its further investigated but no.....it has not fallen apart, its quite real unless you're going to believe snopes which is notoriously inaccurate wrt anything political

You could spend the next two weeks denying the facts for which there's no end to the cases where people have been nailed for voter fraud.......

Shit like this is just damning


This doesnt even begin to touch the legalized corruption/fraud that have been implemented in places like Cali where "third parties" are "collecting" votes for registered voters and turning them in.

So much for chain of custody issues/concerns eh?

How about the frmr dem gov of Va issueing pardons en masse to felon's so they could vote......even after the courts slapped him down!!!!!

Nothing to see here.....move along
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
15,877
Likes
7,348
Here's the problem with Mass/RI/CT.

Mass has been a Democrat stronghold since the end of the Coolidge Administration. RI was a battleground state between 1920 and 1956, with the Dems seizing momentum with the Bloodless Revolution in 1935.

The probability of a true conservative majority in these states can't happen again unless you concentrate all the liberals in small urban districts, like what existed in RI until the BR. The Dems had the city but because the state senate was 1 town = 1 senator, the rural, conservative towns held the majority of seats. Then add in suburban sprawl that isn't being reversed: more people are moving into cities and surrounding areas.

I've pretty much accepted staying and fighting in RI unless SHTF or I get a very sweet opportunity that doesn't exist in RI. But SNE isn't going red anytime in the foreseeable future.

What we can do is win small victories and achieve limited, specific goals.
I hear ya. Mass/RI/CT is never gonna go from Democrat Texas to Republican Texas. But I don't think circling the wagons further from the front is an effective long-term strategy. I'd rather keep the fight right here and push back and hold the line versus falling back and starting over in that spot.

Virginia was much more conservative at one time. TX and FL are headed in the same direction. I'm sure we all have a level of concern over this.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,684
Likes
1,627
Location
SE MA
Not sure if serious.... if I had a time machine I would teleport you to various NH big dump city polling locations during the democrat primary a few cycles
ago, and you would have seen it first hand...sea of MA license plates.... because shitlery's minions were trying to f*** Obama out of the nomination. I mean, all you literally had to do
at the time was fill out an affadavit and vote. If they're willing to do it against their own that means the capability exists and will be used. Obviously it's going to vary, depending on the district involved, the evolving rules (NH just passed some stuff to try to curb some of it) etc. That's just one of many examples.

Also, while I don't like mittens, please don't try to sit there and tell us it didn't happen..... There was a district in Philadelphia where not one single person voted for Romney. That's not likely
"just a coincidence". That kind of thing simply cannot and does not happen if there is not fraud involved! The security of our voting systems in this country is f***ing horrible, to put it mildly. I wouldn't be surprised if some shitty neocons have exploited it too, in certain elections, etc.

There's zero justification for lack of voter identification or other things that would stop fraud. If you asked most taxpayers if they would pay for these things they have a problem
with it. And the moonbat excuse of that "disenfranchising" people with voter id laws are retarded- most people would have no problem accommodating people wantiwoudln'tng to obtain a voter ID
in some way or another.

-Mike

One of my employees is a recently naturalized US Citizen, yesterday was her first election. She's a die hard lib for the most part. When she came back from voting she was appalled at the process, she said anyone could walk in and vote, asked how is it that they do not check ID. She told me I could walk in and claim I'm her son, who is active military out of state and wasn't voting for Mayor/City Council or one of her female coworkers could go in and claim to be one of her daughters who don't live locally and who are still on the rolls. I told her my mother in law was on the rolls for a couple/few years after her death. She asked what would stop the poll workers from filling out extra ballots and run them through the machine... they're paper for chrissakes! [her words]. When I told her that this is a relatively small town, enough people know me and/or her son that I might not be able to pass myself off, but what if it was a precinct in a large city with politically motivated poll workers? Imagine what they could do. She could not for the life of her understand the objection to requiring ID to vote.
 
Last edited:

timbo

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
9,179
Likes
5,082
Location
Rt 3, NH
Where is the voter fraud?
Do a little research...it's only the liberal left leaning media that says there is no voter fraud in NH. I have seen the results personally regarding the investigations by a one Mr. Ed Naile. Google him. He is fighting an uphill battle trying to prove this because our AG doesn't want to hear it. Our AG's head is in the sand and all the media outlets in NH are in lock step calling Mr. Naile a liar (or worse). Contact Ed...he's a great guy and will show you the evidence if you ask. If the Dems thought the fraud was being committed by the conservatives, you'd NEVER hear the end of it.

Here's a start if you're so inclined
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,776
Likes
23,239
1960: John F. Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon
Earl Mazo, a Washington reporter for the New York Herald Tribune, began his investigation after he said Chicago reporters were "chastising" him and other national reporters for missing the real story.
He traveled to Chicago, obtained a list of voters in the suspicious precincts, and began matching names with addresses. Mazo told The Washington Post:

Mazo also found that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's charge that other counties were doing the same thing in favor of Republicans proved to be true—but nothing on the scale of what happened in Chicago.
In Texas, Mazo found similar circumstances.
The New York Herald Tribune planned a 12-part series on the election fraud. Four of the stories had been published and were republished in newspapers across the country in mid-December.
At Richard Nixon's request, Mazo met him at the vice president's Senate office, where Nixon told him to back off, saying, "Our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis" in the midst of the Cold War.
Mazo didn't back off, and Nixon called his editors. The newspaper did not run the rest of the series. "I know I was terribly disappointed. I envisioned the Pulitzer Prize," Mazo said.
The entire matter wasn't void of accountability.
Illinois state special prosecutor Morris Wexler, named to investigate charges of election fraud in Chicago, indicted 677 election officials, but couldn't nail down convictions with state Judge John Karns.
It wasn't until 1962, when an election worker confessed to witness tampering in Chicago's 28th Ward, that three precinct workers pleaded guilty and served jail sentences.
Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported hearing tapes of FBI wiretaps about potential election fraud. Hersh—whose books indicate he is a fan of neither Kennedy nor Nixon—believed Nixon was the rightful winner.
This is the type of thing that highlights that this shouldn't necessarily be a partisan issue. It's a national concern, and SHOULD be for those who vote period, regardless of
political affiliation. One would think that, one time, people could agree on something? this ONE thing maybe? [laugh]

The thing that makes it pretty obvious to me that dems, on average, likely benefit more from fraud, is the hue and cry about disenfranchising voters every time someone wants to change the laws to increase the requirements to vote- none of those motherf***ers ever say "well, we'll vote for your voter ID law as long as the people we're concerned about are accommodated" The dems like the system to be "loose and f***ey" because they know they can exploit it in certain districts to potentially affect the outcome of some elections.

There are TONS of ways to accommodate those needs of the "supposedly would-be disenfranchised voters" . And no voter with a functioning brain cell would have a problem paying for
any of it, considering after the first few elections the cost would drop pretty hard as more people obtained voter IDs.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,776
Likes
23,239
...and Maggie Hassan likely went to the Senate that way, as well.
That one is hard to tell, She took Ayotte's seat so that's not a fait 'd'accompli that fraud got her there. Ayotte went full RINOtard and I think that's a big part of why she
lost, because lots of independent and otherwise conservative voters lost faith. So you throw that in the mix plus a little fraud on top for frosting, and there you go....

-Mike
 

blindfire

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
15,529
Likes
3,927
One of my employees is a recently naturalized US Citizen, yesterday was her first election. She's a die hard lib for the most part. When she came back from voting she was appalled at the process, she said anyone could walk in and vote, asked how is it that they do not check ID. She told me I could walk in and claim I'm her son, who is active military out of state and wasn't voting for Mayor/City Council or one of her female coworkers could go in and claim to be one of her daughters who don't live locally and who are still on the rolls. I told her my mother in law was on the rolls for a couple/few years after her death. She asked what would stop the poll workers from filling out extra ballots and run them through the machine... they're paper for chrissakes! When I told her that this is a relatively small town, enough people know me and/or her son that I might not be able to pass myself off, but what if it was a precinct in a large city with politically motivated poll workers, imagine what they could do. She could not for the life of her understand the objection to requiring ID to vote.
Your vote would be counted as provisional until they verified your legal status to vote in that district.
 

blindfire

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
15,529
Likes
3,927
This is the type of thing that highlights that this shouldn't necessarily be a partisan issue. It's a national concern, and SHOULD be for those who vote period, regardless of
political affiliation. One would think that, one time, people could agree on something? this ONE thing maybe? [laugh]

The thing that makes it pretty obvious to me that dems, on average, likely benefit more from fraud, is the hue and cry about disenfranchising voters every time someone wants to change the laws to increase the requirements to vote- none of those motherf***ers ever say "well, we'll vote for your voter ID law as long as the people we're concerned about are accommodated" The dems like the system to be "loose and f***ey" because they know they can exploit it in certain districts to potentially affect the outcome of some elections.

There are TONS of ways to accommodate those needs of the "supposedly would-be disenfranchised voters" . And no voter with a functioning brain cell would have a problem paying for
any of it, considering after the first few elections the cost would drop pretty hard as more people obtained voter IDs.

-Mike
Sure, but when the voter laws are upheld, the state legislature will just gerrymander a district to dilute one party or the other's ability to carry the district. SCOTUS had a chance to address that, but they punted it last term.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,684
Likes
1,627
Location
SE MA
Your vote would be counted as provisional until they verified your legal status to vote in that district.
What does a provisional ballot have to do with anything in that scenario? If I showed up at the polling place and claimed I was her son, who is on the rolls, is out of town and we know didn't vote, how would they know I'm not him unless they knew one of us personally?
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,776
Likes
23,239
Sure, but when the voter laws are upheld, the state legislature will just gerrymander a district to dilute one party or the other's ability to carry the district. SCOTUS had a chance to address that, but they punted it last term.
Different problem, and still doesn't excuse having policies in place that promote, aid and abet various forms of voter fraud. I hate gerrymandering too but it is a
different problem with different solutions. (the best of which is to just increase representation).

Plus gerrymandering doesn't affect the f***ery at all on in-party races, like primaries. Voter fraud affects everyone, at different levels of voting!

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,776
Likes
23,239
You mean like gerrymandering that the republicans employ? Yea...Dems do it too. But prove that there was fraud. Trump made that claim in 2016 about NH but his own teams investigation found none.
IMHO trumps claim was likely bologna but good luck fully investigating it one way or another... like is anyone going to show you all the voter affadavits so you can prove whether or not that person was a legal resident? Further, even if they're challenged, they can make up some story and go "oh yeah I lived in Nashua, and then moved back to MA" etc. It would be very hard to fully investigate such things without LE powers.

The other part that makes no sense is why would the dems waste time throwing fraud in NH... (in a general election) to try to win a state with like 3 or 4 EVs or whatever it is? You would think they would be sending all of those people to PA, MI, OH, FL, etc, swingy places with a lot of EVs that they might be able to win.

-Mike
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,269
Likes
3,285
Location
Milky Way
Ok maybe not tipping left but a recount with 5Kish difference between the two, is still not something I would like to see from this state.
It's pretty simple. Matt Bevin was unpopular in Kentucky. He received 704,000+ votes and the Dem, Beshear received 709,000+. All the other Republicans running won with higher voting numbers than Beshear and Bevin:

Daniel Cameron - 823,000
Ryan Quarles - 821,000
Mike Harmon - 779,000
Michael Adams - 746,000
Allison Ball - 856,000

You can also make a case that the Libertarian, Hicks, ran in the race receiving 28,000+ votes also helped to beat Bevin. A large percentage of those voters most likely would have voted Republican and put Bevin over the top.

Last I read its 4k votes out of over 1 million......its well within the margin of voter fraud and kentucky has been a target of Soros and the Red for Ed bullschtein.......
Its a textbook example of how the left can and is targeting states/elections
the trump rally was too little, too late......Bevin is a rock star on the issues but didnt to a good job of being a politician/keeping people enguaged/turning out the vote......
The left is trying to discourage people from voting GOP and they are seeing some success.........at the same time they are trying to energize their base which they are also seeing some success with.....
I hate to say it but I think a large portion of the 2020 election is going to hinge on whether or not the DoJ prosecutes criminal behavior by oblunder and his cabal......no prosecutions/upholding rule of law and people will ask themselves why bother voting.....
It's pretty hard to make a case for voter fraud when all the other Republicans running received anywhere from 40,000 to 152,000 more votes than Bevin received as governor. He was simply unpopular and as recent as last summer only had an approval rating of 33%.
 

Super99Z

NES Member
Rating - 50%
1   1   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
4,153
Likes
3,026
Location
South Shore
Unfortunately in this country when you are unhappy with a Republican, your only option is to elect a Democrat. Otherwise we have the same shitty Republicans over and over.
 

Yazz

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
6,528
Likes
2,905
Location
Eastern Ma.
Sure, but when the voter laws are upheld, the state legislature will just gerrymander a district to dilute one party or the other's ability to carry the district. SCOTUS had a chance to address that, but they punted it last term.
Like Barney Frank?
Look at the map of his district.
Massachusetts lost a Rep because legal population went down.
How many years ago did the Democrats Gerrymander Barney's district?
60 years ago.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
7,900
Likes
6,211
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
The GOP in VA learned from the GOP in MA. They sit back doing the Bill Kristol & David French cuckhold thing playing the patsy fake opposition to roll over and lose 'with dignity'. More than half the positions the DNC took in VA didn't even have a GOP challenger. You have a gleeful baby killing black face wearing racist waltzing back into the governor's mansion with all but a wet napkin in opposition from the VA GOP. Useless quisling squishes!
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,276
Likes
13,484
Location
PREM
If Republicans win, the Democrats scream "Gerrymandering!"

If Democrats win, the Republicans scream "Vote fraud!"

I wish that just for once, both parties would look at the absolute idiotic choices they put forth as nominees and say, "Yep... we deserved to lose."
Why can't all three be true?
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
29,036
Likes
13,981
this does not bode well for 2020.

if these batshit crazy liberals get into office for four years, what obama did to our nation is going to look like it was a cake walk.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,609
Likes
1,385
Location
RI
this does not bode well for 2020.

if these batshit crazy liberals get into office for four years, what obama did to our nation is going to look like it was a cake walk.
Trump lost VA in 2016, so no skin off our rosy noses if VA becomes permanently blue. Our next former Confederate battleground state is NC, which I could also see going blue within a generation because of massive influxes of northerners moving to the area.

Couldn't pay me to live down there but what do I know.
 

Buck F

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,684
Likes
1,627
Location
SE MA
The other part that makes no sense is why would the dems waste time throwing fraud in NH... (in a general election) to try to win a state with like 3 or 4 EVs or whatever it is? You would think they would be sending all of those people to PA, MI, OH, FL, etc, swingy places with a lot of EVs that they might be able to win.

-Mike
it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the presidential race but it sure does if there’s a closely contested Senate race ;) MAholes swarming NH is a whole lot easier than them going to the swing states.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
2,725
Likes
2,458
Location
western mass
Here's the problem with Mass/RI/CT.

Mass has been a Democrat stronghold since the end of the Coolidge Administration. RI was a battleground state between 1920 and 1956, with the Dems seizing momentum with the Bloodless Revolution in 1935.

The probability of a true conservative majority in these states can't happen again unless you concentrate all the liberals in small urban districts, like what existed in RI until the BR. The Dems had the city but because the state senate was 1 town = 1 senator, the rural, conservative towns held the majority of seats. Then add in suburban sprawl that isn't being reversed: more people are moving into cities and surrounding areas.

I've pretty much accepted staying and fighting in RI unless SHTF or I get a very sweet opportunity that doesn't exist in RI. But SNE isn't going red anytime in the foreseeable future.

What we can do is win small victories and achieve limited, specific goals.
Meh, the old 60's counter culture hippies up in the hill towns are dying off.
 
Top Bottom