Voter Fraud Changed the Outcome of the New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
19,195
Likes
14,946
Location
Back from Motherland
It SHOULD be an easy thing to verify but frequently its not.

There's an interstate voter validation compact that includes 30 states that prior dem governors fLynch and Hassan predictably kept NH out of

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-list-accuracy.aspx#Interstate Cross-Checks

Voter fraud only benefits dems which is why they fight so hard to keep a light from being shined on this issue

I don't see why it would be so hard to make this happen, even create a temp agency or contract a company to do the investigation. Charge each violator with a decent size fine and direct revenue to pay for the contract. The evidence is black/white, it's either you voted in more than one state or you hasn't.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,833
Likes
12,801
I don't see why it would be so hard to make this happen, even create a temp agency or contract a company to do the investigation. Charge each violator with a decent size fine and direct revenue to pay for the contract. The evidence is black/white, it's either you voted in more than one state or you hasn't.
Its not difficult to implement.....its a matter of politics and getting the legislature/executive to join the other 30 states that participate in the validation process

Its also politics that prevents same day registrations with bs like a college ID that helps continue to propagate the nullification of citizens votes
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,252
Likes
6,429
Location
Granite State of Mind
Folks need to be aware that same day voter registration is killing our elections

There were over 6500 people who registered same day in last elecition and a year later over 5000 of them still had not established residency as measurable by any normal means.

The margin in the presidential election (Trump/Clinton) was something like 1000 votes.

There's little debate to be had that without these illegal voters that NH's two electoral votes would have gone to Trump
There is still zero evidence about which voter voted for whom.

As it should be. Do you want any random person to be able to know how you voted?
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
46,679
Likes
19,418
Location
Living Free In The 603
There is still zero evidence about which voter voted for whom.
True.
However, the major demographic group of these voters were out of state college students, who are known for both their leftist leanings, and willingness to disregard laws they don't agree with.
You don't need evidence of who they voted for specifically, just check with their home state and see if they checked in and took a ballot at their local assigned polling place, or voted absentee. If they did, charge them with the felony of voting twice. Even if only 20% of those 5,313 questionable votes were cast for Hassan, that still exceeds the margin of victory over Ayotte.
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
19,467
Likes
10,582
Location
NH
Folks need to be aware that same day voter registration is killing our elections

There were over 6500 people who registered same day in last elecition and a year later over 5000 of them still had not established residency as measurable by any normal means.

The margin in the presidential election (Trump/Clinton) was something like 1000 votes.

There's little debate to be had that without these illegal voters that NH's two electoral votes would have gone to Trump
I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but Hassan won by a C hair as well.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
18,833
Likes
12,801
There is still zero evidence about which voter voted for whom.

As it should be. Do you want any random person to be able to know how you voted?
Doesnt matter who they voted for even though its widely understood who this demographic historically votes for

The simple fact of the matter is that the amount of fraud exceeds by several times the margin by which elections are being decided......not to mention the fact that there are few more heinous crimes than nullification of a citizens right to vote
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
14,695
Likes
10,087
Location
North Shore
All of the NH seats were decided by well under the actual suspect votes.
After the first few get nailed to the wall , a lot of it is going stop on it's own.
It's been fun and games because they knew there wasn't going to be jack done about it.
Once it gets real ,not so much.
 

PennyPincher

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
13,028
Likes
5,936
Location
Texas
"Out of state people who have IDs from a different state" should be voting in said state and NOT in New Hampshire. Why is that so difficult to understand?
I don't "get" why this is even an issue. When I was in college I was told that I was still considered a resident of ME even though I went to school in MA. If I was to vote, I voted in ME. State taxes? Paid to ME. DL? ME. How the hell do people not get that?
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
46,679
Likes
19,418
Location
Living Free In The 603
Of course it does. This thread wouldn't even exist otherwise.
It's not about who they vote for, it's about where they vote.
A college student with an out-of-state ID is a temporary resident, and they still have the right to vote in their home state.
Whereas a permanent resident, one who has legitimately moved and obtained an instate ID, has given up their right to vote elsewhere.
It's either one or the other, it can't legally be both.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
15,383
Likes
9,845
Location
In Orbit
Funny story:

Some number of decades back, I spent a year attending grad school at a certain Michigan institution of higher education. First month I was there, we had a discussion about car insurance, and when I told them what I was paying (Connecticut rates), they looked at me like I was from Mars, and suggested I register it there and save a ton of money. Since my intention was to be there a couple of years, at least, I did, and did all the usual stuff to establish residence, including registering to vote.

Long story short: grad school there didn't work out, and I found myself back in Connecticut (and back paying CT rates for insurance). Did all the stuff in reverse. Months later, I get a notice that I was being removed from the voter roles. It seems my registration in Michigan had just caught up with Connecticut. I had to make a trip to town hall to get it straightened out.

Not sure how it would play today, but those were the days you had to send in a canvass postcard every year, or you'd be removed. I haven't had to do that in ages.
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
46,679
Likes
19,418
Location
Living Free In The 603
Good News for those opposed to voter fraud in NH:

NH Supreme Court clears way for Sununu to sign controversial election law | New Hampshire

CONCORD — A controversial bill that would govern who gets to vote in New Hampshire is one step closer to being signed into law.

The state Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion Thursday that House Bill 1264, defining residency and domicile for purposes of voting, is constitutional, setting the stage for Gov. Chris Sununu to sign the bill into law despite his previously stated concern that it would constrain voting among college students.
 

JayMcB

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
11,274
Likes
6,808
Location
Metro-Worst, assachusetts
It's not about who they vote for, it's about where they vote.
A college student with an out-of-state ID is a temporary resident, and they still have the right to vote in their home state.
Whereas a permanent resident, one who has legitimately moved and obtained an instate ID, has given up their right to vote elsewhere.
It's either one or the other, it can't legally be both.
I have to paste this full-retard SJW answer from my SJW niece's faceplant page:

The issue with this legislation is that it defines residency in a way that conflicts with the definition of domicile, as interpreted by both the state and federal Supreme Courts. As a result, it would disenfranchise many college students and other new state residents who haven't had the time since moving to switch all their stuff over to NH at the DMV. I believe one of the questions the state Supreme Court is considering is whether forcing someone to register a car here specifically in order to vote constitutes a poll tax, because the cost isn't insignificant, especially to a college student. There are also logistical reasons why it may not make sense to require car registration- my car was registered in Rhode Island while I was in college here because in order for my parents to put the insurance under their bundled and more affordable policy, the car had to be registered at the same address. Should I have gone out and gotten an independent insurance policy and paid a few hundred dollars to register here on my $8/hour, 10 hour per week work study job? The common misconception about allowing college students to vote in the state that they spend 4 or more years living in for most if not all of the year is that they don't really have deep enough ties to the state or aren't informed enough. But under our existing laws, including the pending ones here, someone who grew up in Westford, MA and who still visits their family there every weekend who moved to Nashua can go to the DMV once they have their first utility bill in, get their license and registration done there, and then vote in the elections of a state they may not even plan on staying in for more than a year before they buy a house in Westford. Now I don't see a problem with that because people who physically stay in a state most of their time are going to be affected by the laws and policies of that state, and the principles of democracy say they should have a voice. But college students have arguably just as many if not more ties than other people who move to the state temporarily who can vote legally under these laws. The idea is a blatant try to limit the number of likely democratic voters in the state, which is pretty hilarious and misguided when you consider that, despite college students being able to vote, we have a Republican governor, republican house, and republican senate. If they're worried about being voted out by politically active college students (again, only the ones from out of state - the majority are from in state and can still vote at their parents addresses if their parents didn't move out of state once they were empty nesters), maybe they should try to get votes the old fashioned way by learning how to appeal to voters of all ages and demographics.

to which I respond...bullshit. You live in a state, or you don't.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,834
Likes
4,364
"If while here such persons come to regard New Hampshire as ’home’ and establish sufficient attachment to the state to satisfy the requirements of domicile, then they will be entitled to vote here."

So what exactly does that mean?
 

Lip

Army Veteran
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
7,531
Likes
3,518
Location
Free, free at last. Hudson New Hampster.
Over 6,000 individuals registered to vote in New Hampshire on Election Day Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses — and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle.

Speaker of the New Hampshire House Shawn Jasper, a Republican, issued the findings on Thursday based on inquiries he made to the Department of State, which oversees elections, and the Department of Safety.

5,313 of those voters were not actually residing in New Hampshire. It seems that they never were bona fide residents of the State.

5,513 is a big number – more than enough to swing two very important elections. The closest major election was the contest between incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte and challenger Maggie Hassan (D). Hassan won the election by a razor-thin marginof 1,017 votes. Those 5,313 fraudulent votes were more than enough to swing the election. If 59.2 percent or more of them went for Hassan, then the election was stolen through voter fraud. That’s likely, since the surrounding states are Democrat strongholds.

It’s also possible that New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes were swung to Hillary Clinton through illegal voting by nonresidents. Clinton won New Hampshire by only 2,732 votes. If 74.8 percent of the 5,513 fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton, then the presidential election in New Hampshire was tipped as well.

If the presidential contest had been closer and had come down to a margin of three or four electoral college votes, then this voter fraud might have had extraordinary consequences. Regardless, in the Senate contest, it is highly likely that voting by nonresidents changed the result.

And that is already having consequences for the nation. If the 52-48 Republican-Democrat balance in the Senate were 53-47, it could change the balance in any number of votes – not the least of which would be the effort to repeal Obamacare.

But the mainstream media will tell us, “Move along, there’s nothing to see here.” Voter fraud virtually never occurs.


Articles at:

More than 5,000 out-of-state voters may have tipped New Hampshire against Trump

Kobach: It Appears Out-of-State Voters Changed Outcome of New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race



Let's not forget how voter fraud by felons tipped the MN US Senate race to Democrat Al Franken
Frankens tactics should be used by the republicans, minus the groping. Recount, recount recount.
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
46,679
Likes
19,418
Location
Living Free In The 603
I have to paste this full-retard SJW answer from my SJW niece's faceplant page:
The issue with this legislation is that it defines residency in a way that conflicts with the definition of domicile, as interpreted by both the state and federal Supreme Courts. As a result, it would disenfranchise many college students and other new state residents who haven't had the time since moving to switch all their stuff over to NH at the DMV.
Sorry, NH law gives you 60 days to change over your DL and vehicle registrations to NH if you intend to reside here, which is more than a reasonable amount of time to do so. Saying you don't have time isn't a legally valid excuse.
BTW, Mass only gives you 30 days to do it unless you get a non-resident student decal for your car from the RMV.

I believe one of the questions the state Supreme Court is considering is whether forcing someone to register a car here specifically in order to vote constitutes a poll tax, because the cost isn't insignificant, especially to a college student. There are also logistical reasons why it may not make sense to require car registration- my car was registered in Rhode Island while I was in college here because in order for my parents to put the insurance under their bundled and more affordable policy, the car had to be registered at the same address. Should I have gone out and gotten an independent insurance policy and paid a few hundred dollars to register here on my $8/hour, 10 hour per week work study job?


So her intent is to reside in NH, and take advantage of all the privileges afforded to NH residents, but NOT contribute to the operation of the state by screwing them out of the tax revenue collected through vehicle taxes and fees ???



The common misconception about allowing college students to vote in the state that they spend 4 or more years living in for most if not all of the year is that they don't really have deep enough ties to the state or aren't informed enough. But under our existing laws, including the pending ones here, someone who grew up in Westford, MA and who still visits their family there every weekend who moved to Nashua can go to the DMV once they have their first utility bill in, get their license and registration done there, and then vote in the elections of a state they may not even plan on staying in for more than a year before they buy a house in Westford.
So if you don't intend to stay in NH, why should you be allowed to come up here and muddy up the political system, especially if you have no skin in the game by paying the local taxes.
That's like going to a friends house, pissing in their pool, flipping them the bird and then leaving.

Now I don't see a problem with that because people who physically stay in a state most of their time are going to be affected by the laws and policies of that state, and the principles of democracy say they should have a voice. But college students have arguably just as many if not more ties than other people who move to the state temporarily who can vote legally under these laws. The idea is a blatant try to limit the number of likely democratic voters in the state, which is pretty hilarious and misguided when you consider that, despite college students being able to vote,
If you choose to live here and not become a legitimate, TAX PAYING resident, why should you have a voice here ???
Also, if you don't give up your home state residency, nothing is stopping you from voting, you can still vote in your home state. How far is it to drive from Nashua to Westford on election day ??? And there's always absentee voting too, so don't say your right to vote is being taken away, unless your real intent is to illegally vote in two different places.


to which I respond...bullshit. You live in a state, or you don't.
This^
 

EJFudd

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,813
Likes
1,482
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
I have to paste this full-retard SJW answer from my SJW niece's faceplant page... to which I respond...bullshit. You live in a state, or you don't.
It's not so much about college kids per se. It's about thousands of deranged leftist Dims from MA going up to NH to vote fraudulently.

Same day registration is a scam to enable fraud.
Exactly. Always has been, always will be. Hope NH can now finally stop it. [thinking]
 

JayMcB

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
11,274
Likes
6,808
Location
Metro-Worst, assachusetts
So her intent is to reside in NH, and take advantage of all the privileges afforded to NH residents, but NOT contribute to the operation of the state by screwing them out of the tax revenue collected through vehicle taxes and fees ???


If you choose to live here and not become a legitimate, TAX PAYING resident, why should you have a voice here ???
Also, if you don't give up your home state residency, nothing is stopping you from voting, you can still vote in your home state. How far is it to drive from Nashua to Westford on election day ??? And there's always absentee voting too, so don't say your right to vote is being taken away, unless your real intent is to illegally vote in two different places.
This is the crux of the matter. To her (their) deluded way of 'thinking', they don't need to contribute to have a say, just like any other FSA shitbag, and we should give their non-contributing views credence.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,810
Likes
31,847
A good step but if this doesn't outlaw the same day affadavits they gotta work towards that.... otherwise the effect will be somewhat constrained. Ironically moonbats that want fairer elections should support that, because it would block DNC astroturfing "pet" candidates in the nh primaries.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
11,252
Likes
6,429
Location
Granite State of Mind
Think like a lawyer:

Because this is RSA 21, it defines "resident" for all sections of the NH RSAs.

Even though the feds have their own (quite relaxed, surprisingly) definition of "resident" for firearms purchases when it comes to those with dual or multiple dwellings, NH has now declared that no one can be a "resident" of NH unless they are fully domiciled here.

How long until the ATF cracks down for selling handguns to "non-residents" by the NH definition?
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,015
Likes
1,835
Location
WNW of MHT
Think like a lawyer:
Because this is RSA 21, it defines "resident" for all sections of the NH RSAs. Even though the feds have their own (quite relaxed, surprisingly) definition of "resident" for firearms purchases when it comes to those with dual or multiple dwellings, NH has now declared that no one can be a "resident" of NH unless they are fully domiciled here. How long until the ATF cracks down for selling handguns to "non-residents" by the NH definition?
Red herring. [troll]

Only Federal definitions apply to Federal law; Unlike Massachusetts, New Hampshire has no state law against selling to "non-residents" of NH.
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
46,679
Likes
19,418
Location
Living Free In The 603
Most of this multi state controversy could be avoided if your official federally recognized place of residence is the address you use on your federal tax return, which should also match the address on your DL or state ID.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,810
Likes
31,847
How long until the ATF cracks down for selling handguns to "non-residents" by the NH definition?
They won't, because of what Kevin said, but also, the entire reason ATF's definition is pretty broad to begin with is to forestall a lot of front-loaded (eg, preventing cases with serious standing) legal challenges against some of the dumber federal gun laws... that all circulate around the nebulous concept of "residency" and as it pertains to exercising a (supposedly) constitutionally guaranteed right.

Granted, however, its worth noting that the federal courts have basically danced around or ignored this issue in the recent past. (that guy who was a US citizen but didn't live here and wanted to own handguns but had no home state of residency came to mind.... I think his case got denied cert or jettisoned at some point. ) The EXTREMELY poor decision in Abramski did not help this at all either. (even though that wasn't really about residency, even a narrow pro-rights decision could have affected such regulatory BS or triggered a wholesale review and gutting of it. )

Their current setup of regulatory bullshit enables the feds to (effectively) wield "extra-regulatory power" without the risk that they will get called out on overstepping their boundaries. Classic example: "A given gun transaction must conform to the laws of your state of residency regardless of the fact that you're not physically inside that state with the firearm you want to buy. " (that's not exactly what their regs say, but that's the cliff notes version). The logic embedded in that piece of garbage is mind numbing.

The only reason it hasn't been challenged is for the simple fact that it's way, way cheaper to just assert a "BATFE compliant" residency claim in (whatever state you're buying the gun in). BATFE knows this and knows that the situation allows them to "have their cake and eat it too". It's a very similar tactic to what the AG does in MA, except BATFE's is much better thought out.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,810
Likes
31,847
Most of this multi state controversy could be avoided if your official federally recognized place of residence is the address you use on your federal tax return, which should also match the address on your DL or state ID.
Should? you mean "usually". That's typically a garbage idea though because that could literally change at any time, or there could be a mismatch between those things for a number of legitimate reasons. It's possible to not have those things match and still have your "behavior" be completely 100% legal by both state and federal law. Unless your idea is to have the feds ram more requirements like RealID down the throats of the states... which to get back to the original topic, it's really unnecessary to do that sort of thing to prevent voter fraud.

Residency for voting purposes is not always the same for taxation purposes, buying /owning/selling guns, or owning cars or driving them.

-Mike
 
Top Bottom