Detroit: Voter Fraud So Extensive- Votes Can't Be Re-counted

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The informed among us have been so preoccupied with all the illegal aliens we know for a fact vote, the individuals that vote multiple times, and the dead vote-- that we sometimes forget about good old fashioned ballot box stuffing.

Ironically, election laws put into place specifically to protect the fraud, and ensure the manipulative discoveries are never identified, now mean the votes cannot be recounted.
theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/12/06/detroit-voter-fraud-so-extensive-half-of-initial-votes-ineligible-for-recount/

Detroit Voter Fraud so Extensive Half of Initial Votes Ineligible for Recount…

Posted on December 6, 2016 by sundance

If anyone thought a Michigan ballot recount was going to end up being a net positive for Hillary Clinton, they are intellectually disconnected from understanding the reality of how fraudulent the most democrat precincts are in Wayne County (Detroit) Michigan.

Election laws put into place specifically to protect the fraud, and ensure the manipulative discoveries are never identified, now mean the votes cannot be recounted.
MICHIGAN – One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots.

Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand. (emphasis mine)

[Value Buy]

Paul, refresh everyone's memory here.
What political party runs and controls the election process in Detroit?

[justme]

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

[Value Buy]

Dec 7, 2016 14:50:35 GMT -5 justme said:

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

Will you settle for malfeasance of duty?

This is unacceptable in this day and age

[rob base]

Dec 7, 2016 14:50:35 GMT -5 justme said:

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

I haven't read the link so I don't know accurate it is.

BUT you can cheat and still lose. It is possible.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 7, 2016 14:50:35 GMT -5 justme said:

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

No, we don't claim it. I'll state it: systematic voter fraud is the policy and practice of the Democratic Party. 

The Democratic party is the obstacle to every effort to ensure the integrity of the vote- without exception.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 7, 2016 14:59:24 GMT -5 rob base said:

Dec 7, 2016 14:50:35 GMT -5 justme said:

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

I haven't read the link so I don't know accurate it is.

BUT you can cheat and still lose. It is possible.

Possible? Hell, Hillary just did it.

[justme]

Dec 7, 2016 17:07:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 7, 2016 14:50:35 GMT -5 justme said:

You're going to claim they committed voter fraud when the opposite party won? Really?

No, we don't claim it. I'll state it: systematic voter fraud is the policy and practice of the Democratic Party. 

The Democratic party is the obstacle to every effort to ensure the integrity of the vote- without exception.

And the Republicans don't systematically try to effect the votes? Because that's been looked into as much as voter fraud and has actual factual support where as fraud hasn't. Or at least fraud in the amount people claim.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 7, 2016 17:22:24 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I love it Paul, and your "mission" of reducing voter fraud is a great one. For some reason I'm sure Democrats aren't as keen on it .

And here I am proposing common sense voting laws-- and I'm willing to compromise: I will go along with ALL proposed Democrat gun laws so long as those same laws apply to voting. ID? Fine. Background checks? Fine. Mental health screening and restrictions for mental illness? OK- sure. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 7, 2016 19:17:19 GMT -5 justme said:

Dec 7, 2016 17:07:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

No, we don't claim it. I'll state it: systematic voter fraud is the policy and practice of the Democratic Party. 

The Democratic party is the obstacle to every effort to ensure the integrity of the vote- without exception.

And the Republicans don't systematically try to effect the votes? Because that's been looked into as much as voter fraud and has actual factual support where as fraud hasn't. Or at least fraud in the amount people claim.

You know repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. The Chatty Cathy doll recorded response that "There's no evidence of voter fraud" is as predictable as it is wrong. 

[justme]

Dec 7, 2016 21:57:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 7, 2016 19:17:19 GMT -5 justme said:

And the Republicans don't systematically try to effect the votes? Because that's been looked into as much as voter fraud and has actual factual support where as fraud hasn't. Or at least fraud in the amount people claim.

You know repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. The Chatty Cathy doll recorded response that "There's no evidence of voter fraud" is as predictable as it is wrong. 

Ditto to you to repeating bullshit.


But no one really needs studies to realize how fucked up gerrymandering is.

[mmhmm]

Dec 7, 2016 21:57:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 7, 2016 19:17:19 GMT -5 justme said:

And the Republicans don't systematically try to effect the votes? Because that's been looked into as much as voter fraud and has actual factual support where as fraud hasn't. Or at least fraud in the amount people claim.

You know repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. The Chatty Cathy doll recorded response that "There's no evidence of voter fraud" is as predictable as it is wrong. 

Now, Paul, if we can just get you to absorb that little bit of knowledge, we'll all be golden. I mostly sit back and watch but I've seen a fair amount of BS coming from you over the years. Justme has just as much right to her stance on this issue as you have to yours. She's not using insulting terms to refer to your stance. Stop using them to refer to hers. Agree to disagree.

[Tennesseer]

Dec 7, 2016 21:57:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 7, 2016 19:17:19 GMT -5 justme said:

And the Republicans don't systematically try to effect the votes? Because that's been looked into as much as voter fraud and has actual factual support where as fraud hasn't. Or at least fraud in the amount people claim.

You know repeating bullshit doesn't make it true. The Chatty Cathy doll recorded response that "There's no evidence of voter fraud" is as predictable as it is wrong. 

Yes we know. Here's a classic example of repeating bullshit that doesn't make it true (she's still quite alive):

HILLARY CLINTON HAS MEDICAL EPISODE AT GROUND ZERO

[alabamagal]

Well I finally saw a reasonable article on this. Headlines said a large number of Detroit precincts could not be recount because ballots did not match voter sign ins. That sounds really bad. But then it was reported that most of those precincts the count was off by 1. Likely due to occasional ballot counted twice. There is no evidence of voter fraud.

And a judge just stopped the recount because a candidate with 1% of the vote has no authority to demand a recount.

Let's just move on.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 8, 2016 8:06:55 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Well I finally saw a reasonable article on this. Headlines said a large number of Detroit precincts could not be recount because ballots did not match voter sign ins. That sounds really bad. But then it was reported that most of those precincts the count was off by 1. Likely due to occasional ballot counted twice. There is no evidence of voter fraud.

And a judge just stopped the recount because a candidate with 1% of the vote has no authority to demand a recount.

Let's just move on.

Link, please.

Thanks!