Unskewed Polling' Creator Launches New Site On How Obama's Win Might Be Based On Voter Fraud

I've known some extremely sharp people that believed in all sorts of zany conspiracies.

Oh, absolutely! ;) I post regularly over at the James Randi Educational Forum, in the anti-conspiracy-wacko-oriented sections -- the politically-themed ones, sadly, are excessively and ultra-oppressively liberal -- and we continually get all sorts showing up there, attempting to convince us (for instance) that "9/11 was an inside job by [Bush/Rove/Cheney/Da JOOOOOOOOOS/Insert Favorite Conspiracy Boogeyman Here], maaaaaannnnnnnnnnn." They range in demonstrable intelligence from dullard (the vast majority, admittedly) to really quite bright, in one given area or another.

Anyone entering said fora intending to advance any extraordinary sort of claim is routinely subjected to infinitely harsher and more exacting grilling than the (comparatively) polite little burp I offered up earlier, in this very thread. ;) All of we assembled there, you see, are conversant in one or more of the "hard" scientific (or mathematical) disciplines... and woe, woe betide any foolish claimant airily attempting to "prove" something that cannot/does not hold up to even a baseline level of inquiry from a cranky chemist, physicist or engineer!

Are there some instances of cheating? Sure, there always is some of that. But it just doesn't account for enough to have changed the overall election results. Blaming fraud will not help us one bit. We lost, people need to deal with it.

This. This, plainly and obviously. This. This. ;)

But it just doesn't account for enough to have changed the overall election results.

That's a strong claim. I think that various articles and postings have shown that the extreme turnout in big cities in 4 critical states made the difference in the election.

Next you'll be telling me that the Federal Reserve really is there to protect the value of the dollar, and that any thinking to the contrary (that they may be there to protect the banks thievery) is a loopy conspiracy theory.

Election fraud has been common place in this country for a long time, well documented under names like 'Tammany Hall'. Since when have we all become such angels that serious election fraud is unthinkable. The actual mechanics of election fraud have just become easier over time with motor voter, early voting, and electronic voting machines. Usually when you find crime becoming easier, and punishment less likely and lighter, you get more crime. And the reward has just become greater, as the government became bigger.

Did you believe J. Edgar Hoover was right when he claimed that the idea of the Mafia was just a myth?

I think that various articles and postings have shown that the extreme turnout in big cities in 4 critical states made the difference in the election.

You know the election really wasn't all that close right? I mean, Hussein won by over 4 million votes. Obama won by over 3%. It would have been more fishy had Romney won those handful of swing states and lost the popular vote by 3.5 million votes or so. The final popular vote results are more decisive than they originally appeared on election night.

Sounds like your slipping into Paultard territory here. I am not a Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists. InfoWars might be the right place for you.

There has always been some election fraud. No doubt about it. But at current count Obama has 50.8% of the vote to Romney's 47.5%. Greater than 3%. It's really not that close. We didn't lose because of vote fraud. Exit polling is a better place to look for reasons why we lost.

Did you even read the information that I posted?

Comparing real felonies to 9/11 Truthers is insulting. Yes, muzzie terrorists are solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I have provided interviews with the Orange County Register and LA Times. I showed them the evidence that about 50% of registered voters across 7 precincts did not exist. Not a word made it into print.

I provided an annotated Voter Roll to Gail P., a vote fraud investigator with the California Attorney General’s Office. No investigation occurred and no charges were pursued. However, this man who had been investigating vote fraud for more than 20 years did provide some wisdom. He said, “The candidate willing to commit the most felonies always wins”.

The FBI was contacted by a colleague of mine, Bill W., regarding massive fraud in Port Arthur, Texas. At first the FBI seemed very interested. Then Bill W. was threatened by a group of union thugs. Then an attempt was made on W.’s life when his car was sabotaged. Injured in the crash and broke, he stopped pursuing vote fraud. He called the FBI and they told him they had been instructed by their superiors to drop the investigation.

Get the picture yet?

The pubbies need to do a better job of campaigning, etc. This is a necessary but not SUFFICIENT condition to win elections.

We now have a Chicago style Machine that runs coast to coast. Deal with that.

Thanks, FRiend.

I cannot figure whether some of these guys are just naive or whether they are trolls.

I have been out on the streets and in the trenches for decades now. You said it right; the corruption is 3rd world level now and the media covers for them.

In my experience vote fraud has ranged from negligible to almost 50%. In the Port Arthur case in 1998 it was almost 100% for that precinct that I staked out. The dims had no get-out-the-vote effort at all. The dim precinct crew just signed the book and cast a ballot for everyone. Voila! 100% turnout.

Based on my many experiences, I think it totals 5-10% of the vote in Presidential elections. That’s significant.

The 3% overall doesn't mean that much when looking at election fraud. You can get 1/3 of that just from California and New York. You have to look at the electoral college and the swing states to see whether or not a few precincts can change the electoral college. Next you'll be telling me that Allen West's election, or Al Franken's election before that were clean. Al Gore can talk to you about one district in FL, and the impact on the electoral college.

The Fed are bankers and do what bankers do, in their own interest and the interest of other bankers. No special conspiracy theory is needed. That's the magic of the 'conspiracy theory nut idea'. The world is full of folks going about in groups saying one thing, and doing another. Yet point out one such case, and you are branded an nut. The Obama wing of the Democratic Party wants to turn this country into a socialist paradise. Or is that yet another conspiracy nut theory.

Following Ron Paul's investment practices over the last 20 years would have been a better idea than following Goldman Sachs ideas. I'm not saying it was the best idea out there, just that he's not the fool you assume on economic matters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.