Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Politics

Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount

Nov. 19, 2012 11:44am Mytheos Holt

Ever since President Obama’s surprising and (to many) disappointing victory in the electoral college, conservatives have been scrambling to find answers to explain the loss. Many wonder openly how they could have misread the electorate this badly, whether the country has shifted from being ideologically center-right to ideologically center-left, and if the key demographics that seem to be increasing with every election cycle can be harnessed to create a new, different conservative coalition.

These are all urgent questions, and conservatives interested in winning should be tackling them. Unfortunately, aside from being a wake-up call, losing an election can also be a grieving process, and the first stage of grief, as any psychologist will tell you, is “denial.”

As such, there has emerged a small, politically marginal but vocal minority within the conservative coalition that simply refuses to accept A) that President Obama won legitimately, and B) that conservatives’ assumptions about the makeup of the electorate were wrong. Instead, they argue, massive voter fraud and tampering with the election must have taken place, and the only sensible thing to do now is to push as hard as possible for a more rigorously guarded recount of the votes. In fact, a petition calling for this precise action has already racked up more than 60,000 signatures on the White House’s petition site.

While this petition – and those calling for the quixotic aim of secession – may be convenient ways for distraught conservatives to make themselves feel better, their overall effect is discrediting and dangerous. Moreover, as with secession, there is precisely zero chance that the election will be recounted. There are numerous reasons for this, which we will endeavor to explain below.

1. Lack of evidence

To begin with, there is insufficient evidence to prove that fraud could have impacted the election. Irregularities in the voting process are, unfortunately, a common problem with modern elections, and almost impossible to correct completely. It is a virtual certainty, in fact, that irregularities have happened in United States elections since at least the Presidential race of 1876, which historians agree was probably stolen by Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, even though Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden won the popular vote.

There Will Be No National Recount Of The 2012 Election

Rutherford B. Hayes (Photo Credit: NNDB)

Over the years since then, America’s election system has tried to correct itself, with mixed success, partially because there are substantial political incentives for both parties to keep doors open to fraud that favors them, and partially because it’s difficult to sift the genuine evidence of fraud from mere sour grapes by a losing candidate. Nevertheless, virtually everyone admits that, in the abstract, voter fraud is a serious problem. John Fund at National Review writes:

“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”

Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats.

TheBlaze TV made the case earlier this month, too, that there is a problem.

That’s a formidable amount of consensus that voter fraud is an issue that needs to be solved. However, preventing it is much easier than proving that it happened, for even in cases where fraud exists, it is ludicrously difficult to prove, especially on a widespread scale. Anecdotal evidence is easy to find, as citizen journalists like James O’Keefe have proven, but proving that a single corrupt official could have impacted the result of an election is very hard, if not impossible. There is a reason that in the space 10 years, the state of Texas has only been able to get about 60 cases of voter fraud to trial, and convict just half of that number: not because a number that small (30 cases in 10 years) is accurate, but because the standards of proof were too high for a large number to found guilty.

With that said, let’s look at some of the arguments for why voter fraud must necessarily have taken place this election cycle. Usually, these accusations take the form of dubiously sourced numbers (or sometimes, numbers with no source at all), of which there are too many for us to debunk them all. However, a few have persistently cropped up, and are worth looking at, if only to show a) how flimsy they are as proof, and b) that even if they were true, they would have made no difference to the election’s outcome.

The first, and probably most superficially persuasive argument, is that particular counties showed turnout over 100%. One of the more oft-cited places this happened is in Wood County Ohio, where it is alleged by some that turnout was 108%. A quick look at the actual results from Wood County shows this to be a fantasy. Actual turnout was around 60% for Wood County. The source of this statistic is unclear, though it likely originated with a Columbus Dispatch article that noted that Wood County had 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible (a curious phenomenon explained by the fact that many Ohio voters are “inactive,” meaning they have either moved or haven’t voted in four years). Even if that number is suspicious, apparently those 109 didn’t turn out at the same rate they registered.

In this Nov. 6, 2012 photo, United Auto Workers member Harry Van Uden attends a rally on Election Day at the UAW Region 1 technical training center in Warren, Mich. Credit: AP

Rachel Alexander of Intellectual Conservative has made a more comprehensive case for voter fraud’s existence, which includes the 109 voter statistic, but also has a number of other claims. She compiles a list of statistics disputing the prospect of Obama winning Ohio, most of which rely upon registration statistics rather than turnout statistics (interesting numbers, but irrelevant given that registered voters do not necessarily equate to likely voters, or the voters who actually turnout as any pollster will tell you), and also relies on circumstantial evidence to argue that even if voter fraud can’t be proven, it’s very likely that it did happen. First, the statistical argument:

According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio’s Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio’s 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.

The inflated numbers can’t just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.

Most of this is lifted directly from the Columbus Dispatch article cited above, and is admittedly good evidence that fraud in Ohio would be easy to commit. However, it’s a long, difficult step from arguing that fraud is possible to arguing that it can demonstrably be proven to have happened on a wide enough scale to have cost a candidate the state. TheBlaze has already covered the bizarre case of the precincts where GOP nominee Mitt Romney got zero votes (about which the Town Hall article is wrong – Cleveland’s own newspaper notes that only 9 precincts gave Obama a unanimous victory), and indeed, those numbers are suspicious.

However, the simpler explanation is that certain areas of Ohio (especially Cuyahoga) really are just that Democratic. After all, several precincts in Utah (a state as reliably Republican as Cuyahoga County is reliably Democratic) showed Barack Obama carrying zero votes, yet one suspects this was more due to ideological homogeneity than fraud, especially given that the precincts in question had just slightly over 500 voters in them to begin with. Had Romney gotten zero votes in the entire county, that would almost certainly be cause for investigation, but in nine out of over 1,000, and only in precincts with slightly over 500 votes? The case looks a lot weaker. In short, simple suspicion that something may have happened, or was likely to happen, does not constitute proof that it did happen.

This leaves out the far more problematic element of the article mentioned above, which argues that Obama may have also won by suppressing the military vote. Yet if voter fraud is difficult to prove, voter suppression is nigh impossible to prove, and short of a smoking gun (which does not exist) showing that military ballots were illegally ignored, this argument would have absolutely no force of law. Indeed, the voter “suppression” argument the author rehearses sounds suspiciously similar to the argument made by Leftists that voter ID laws make it too difficult for minorities to vote, in that the author argues that military voters find it too difficult to get absentee ballots because of existing law. But laws that make voting difficult are not, a priori, unconstitutional, and someone choosing not to go through the hassle of obtaining an absentee ballot does not necessarily constitute voter suppression.

But suppose you ignore these mitigating factors and grant that voter fraud took place in Ohio (the only state seriously contested by the article). Even if you use that as an excuse to give Ohio to Romney, President Obama would still win the election handily thanks to a massive electoral vote lead. In fact, if you gave Romney both Ohio and Florida (states that went by narrower margins), Obama would still win. As such, the fraud argument is an interesting academic digression, but it would do nothing to change the outcome of the election in the two states where it appears to be most likely.

2. Lack of precedent

Given the previous problems, in order to salvage Romney’s chances a nationwide do-over — not just a recount — with extremely strict poll monitoring to guard against any possible fraud, would be necessary. And that is genuinely impossible.

Why? Start with the obvious point: State-by-state recounts are relatively rare in presidential elections, while nationwide recounts are not only unheard of, but structurally impossible. Why? Because, as many liberals discovered to their initial dismay in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, elections are quite literally run on a state-by-state basis. Every state has its own legally mandated margin for a recount, and in the absence of successful lawsuits, most states will likely certify their own election results rather than move to a recount. The only state that moved to a recount because of a legal requirement to do so this election cycle was Florida, which eventually resolved itself in favor of Obama. Other states had results well outside the margin mandating a recount.

Lawsuits could be brought to recount the votes in every state, of course, but don’t expect either political campaign to do this, largely because it would be obscenely costly just to initiate proceedings. With appeals and fees, such an effort would eat up a campaign’s war chest before anything could get done. National parties wouldn’t take the initiative either, not just because of money, but also because a recount (or a do-over) would open up an unresolvable can of worms whereby one party (the Democrats) claim voter suppression via laws like voter ID, while Republicans claim voter fraud based on evidence like the evidence presented above. In either case, nothing could be proven, and courts would throw them out.

Both parties also know to ignore this kind of evidence from experience, because they’ve both been on the receiving end of similar accusations. It’s easy to forget now, but after the 2004 elections, Democrats claimed George W. Bush had stolen the election and developed extremely fancy statistical modeling techniques to prove as much in every election since then. In fact, one such leftist election pundit, Richard Charnin, claims that voter fraud benefitted Romney this election cycle. According to Charnin, who runs a website disputing every election since 1968, Obama should have won at least 370 (!) electoral votes.

However, for all Charnin’s speculative number-mongering, Democrats have not attempted to contest any of the elections that he argues they should have “won” using his evidence, with the exception of 2000, and that only because the electoral vote and popular vote diverged. Moreover, seeing as Obama’s margin in the popular vote is closer to Bush’s against Kerry in 2004 than the razor thin margin held by Democrat John F. Kennedy in 1960 (another election where fraud is generally agreed to have happened), Republicans would be unlikely to see it as a repeat of that election.

In fact, many Republicans may listen to the cries of voter fraud and hear nothing but echoes of the sorts of people who argued that polls were wrong because they showed too high a Democratic turnout advantage, and now still can’t believe that turnout advantage actually surfaced. The fact that these accusations of fraud have, in some cases, taken on an ugly racial tinge is just one more reason why Republicans would seek to avoid conferring legitimacy on those making them.

Bottom line: You can’t “unskew” an election, and those that want to try will get nowhere politically or practically. As RedState’s Erick Erickson wrote:

Barack Obama won. He won by turning out the most people in a well run campaign. In other words, he won fair and square.[...]

Too many people have spent the past four years obsessed with birth certificates. Now they are obsessed with voter fraud conspiracies, talk of secession, and supposed election changing news stories if only we had known.

There is nothing to know. Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney last week by running a superior campaign and turning out his supporters more aggressively than Romney did. The vast majority of state-level polling companies were right, and the vast majority of national polling companies were wrong (with the exception of the poll run by TIPP – ironically, a company hired by a conservative news source, IBD).

The election is over. The fight for America, however, may be just beginning.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (447)

Nevermind
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:14pm
Unless someone has verifiable proof of voter fraud this is a bunch of sour graps from sore losers and it is getting old. The GOP tried to restrict the right to vote in many states and still lost, now the ones trying to supress the vote dont think it is fair? Tough.

For those that dont like the results and want to secede, please leave. The USA doesnt want nor need you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bigbear_awake
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:21pm
  we’ll see when the ones that have no longer have and that includes YOU(because it goes for the world not just for the UNITED STATES) even the poorest have it better than anyone in like Kenya
  
  Report this comment
- M24
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:26pm
  Spoken Just like a Obama **** Sucker. Oh by the way Obama still can’t Walk on water. Boo Hoo
  
  Report this comment
- Anadara
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:48pm
  Go back for a second serving of koolaid. I have seen the voter fraud perpetrated by the Left with my own eyes. Let me tell all of you deniers, voter fraud is real. The only way that all of the polls of well respected pollsters could have gotten the 2012 election so wrong is that they did not calculate the fraud factor. BTW …Resistance to voter ID laws – that’s just a red herring created by the Liberal left to create a recount in case the pollsters were right. To preserve faith in voting we need to ban electronic voting machines! They are more easily hacked than your laptop. This cyber exploitation can be perpetrated by any government, nation, or individual with the right clandestine resources. Without a fair vote we are relegated to one party rule. …Marxists and Communists like that notion.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:51pm
  Voter ID restricts nobody’s right to vote. If taking a Saturday morning to tromp down to the nearest BMV to get a free ID is too much effort, you probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place. Anybody who even vaguely tries to get ID, can.
  
  You sound more bitter everyday Nevermind. Why?
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:59pm
  Last I checked the constitution restricts the right to vote to citizens. I think it’s telling that people like you villainize any attempt to make it harder for non-citizens to vote in our elections. Yes all citizens have a right to vote but the government has a duty to insure the INTEGRITY of our democratic elections. If you wish to exercise your right to vote then you should be willing to do something as basic as showing your state issues photos ID which you need to have anyway to function in toady’s world. I guess you are also against the background checks for buying a gun as well right?
  
  Report this comment
- Seede
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:52pm
  NEVERMIND
  
  For those that dont like the results and want to secede, please leave. The USA doesnt want nor need you.
  
  You needed a million me’s back in 1941 to clean up Europe and Japan. That’s how you lived long enough to spout your socialist garbage. The day will come Mr. hot shot that you might wish the old timers were still around to save your sorry a$$. Hope you have good luck in your next war cause you sure are going to need it.
  
  Report this comment
- AZRACISTBIGOT
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:07pm
  @NEVERMIND
  I can’t find anybody but a few morons and missfits that will admit to voting for him.
  What the H*LL are “Sour Graps” anyway?
  
  Report this comment
- walkintruth
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:24pm
  That’s like saying that passports restrict people from leaving the country. Or a drivers license prevents people from driving. Nonsense. Voter ID assures the person voting is who he says he is, nothing more.
  
  Report this comment
- daxbrady
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:03pm
  When you have more votes than registered voters for one candidate….. you have verifiable evidence of voter fraud….. When you have precincts that have 0 votes for 1 major candidate (but a few votes for the libertarian to the right of him) you have voter fraud.
  
  Report this comment
- starview
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:04pm
  Many have known the voter fraud couldn’t be proven. Lets put our energy into what can be proven, and that is Benghazi, someone gave the “stand down” order that resulted in the death of four Americans. Hillary has already “lawyered up”, lets so who else scurries under a rock over Benghazi.
  
  Report this comment
- randellmd
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:22pm
  I don’t want to leave, come and make me big boy.
  
  Report this comment
- Recceman90
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:01pm
  Restrict the right to vote? You must be talking about having to show ID….well why do I have to be “restricted” to buy cold medicine, get into a government building, pick my kid up from school, buy booze, etc?
  
  Everyone has ID, you actually need it to get your food stamps!
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:13pm
  @NEVERMIND <—– The only thing worse than a sore loser is an insecure winner.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:20pm
  Nevermind… I couldn’t agree more!
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:38pm
  @KEATON and NEVER How can you possibly allege that a voter ID laws “restrict” anything? Please show us some actual examples of these mysterious non-ID-carrying people who can somehow navigate through modern life without presenting identification! Please, just show one example, and then provide a reasonable explanation as to why this person does not have an ID. You cannot even get on an airplane without identification; try visiting another country without a passport! Want to apply for credit at a bank? How about opening an account? Why would anyone marginalize themselves in this way? Identification opens far more doors than it closes.
  
  The kind of (alleged) people you claim to protect (IF THEY EVEN EXIST) are so far off the grid they have zero skin in the game: they are non-citizens, non-taxpayers, and as such cannot be viable participants in our democratic process. We all know why you don’t want ID and that is to facilitate fraud.
  
  Report this comment
- the graves vote
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:49pm
  VERIFIABLE proof. Really? There is so much proof of voter fraud if you had to write it all down it would be more pages than the health care plan. Just one for good measure though: one district had 78358 registered voters and received 108000 votes. Most districts only get a 50 to 60 percent turn out to vote and yet this district is 150 percent turn out. Oh yeah, this district went more than 70 percent democrat with a 68 percent registered republican base. Go figure that one out!
  
  Report this comment
- Quiata
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:01pm
  @NEVERMIND And just to slather it on a little more thickly, let’s play a little word game: substitute “George W. Bush” for “Obama” in the following excerpt from the story above… Would love to see your blood pressure stats afterwards.
  
  “According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio’s Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio’s 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. GEORGE W. BUSH miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where DEMOCRAT inspectors were illegally removed.
  
  The inflated numbers can’t just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin GEORGE W. BUSH won Ohio by.”
  
  Report this comment
- Republican_in_STL
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:40pm
  How dare you. I’m at least as much a US Citizen as you. You take issue with us because we believe in honesty and truth?
  
  Report this comment
- fixer
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 4:02pm
  why don’t you leave you liberal commie twit.who needs you?
  
  Report this comment
70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:13pm
Leave you are only here because you are gay and thus identify with the Communist. You have absolutely nothing to add to any argument and are not wanted. You need to see a psychiatrist for your mental problems and being gay. Seek help before you hurt someone. Just saying.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mixplix
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:13pm
There you go….You’ve got the left all upset with this recount possibility when they have already spent the tax money that they thought was in the bag. NYC did this when they raised the tax on the millionaires and over two thousand of them left the city while the politicians had egg all over their faces because they had spent the money already.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Oldphoto678
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:02am
  You’re so wrong. Why would we be worried about a recount that we know is not going to take place?
  
  Report this comment
The_Almighty_Creestof
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:11pm
The “people” have spoken…let it stand.

All I can do now. is look upon the country I though I knew, with disgust.

With all on the line (no matter which side you were on), 2/3rds chose apathy over voting.

More than 1/2 voted for socialism, preferring to give up their rights and opportunities in exchange for being “taken care of”, and ultimately getting far less than anyone with the slightest ambition could have.

No more propping the castle gate up, I say…let it fall and let the chips land where they may.

Either the end comes from the “fiscal cliff”, thanks to the workers having to support the couchsitters. Or the end comes from the couchsitters rioting due to the workers refusing to carry their dead weight any longer. There is no “3rd option”…there is no convincing the couchsitters that standing on their own 2 feet, being responsible, delighting in self-worth is the right path.

All paths lead to the downfall of the USA and civil war.

I would love to move to Texas…but I’d hate to be that close to the border in the event of chaos. Maybe Utah would be the better choice.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Deuteronomy22
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:37pm
  Texas is a pretty diverse state and is changing dramatically. The Caucasian population is the first of any state to fall below 50% and out in the rural parts of west Texas there are huge populations of gays and lesbians. In fact Texas has the largest Christian gay populations in the country.
  
  Report this comment
- andersontja
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:02pm
  I live in San Antonio and the cost of living is great. I live in the suburbs in a small town called Cibolo where you are grouped in a different county, Guadalupe; no city taxes. I have loved it here since I was transferred to Fort Sam in the Army and then got out and the job market here is maintaining while the blue states go sour. We are always looking for more educated people with career goals.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:06pm
  Obama only received 62 million of the registered 170 or so million voters…he didn’t get 51% of anything other than those people that decided to show up and vote….
  Now..there are over 210 million eligible voters in the USA…so that means that Obama actually only received about 30% of the votes…we have a President that less than 1 in 3 people actually want in power….
  We have 50 million people unregistered…which means almost 24% of the American public is just too lazy, apathetic, or uncaring to participate in choosing their leaders….
  We had about 40 million people that are registered but still didn’t vote…about 20%.. so that means that 44% of the citizens in this country DO NOT DESERVE this country…our Founders said it… ” a well educated ” citizenry is needed to protect against tyranny and despotism….
  
  There were nearly 90 million people that should have voted that choose not to or even register too… that is more than have voted for ANY President in US history….even the Reagan landslide didn’t get 90 million votes for Reagan…even if you adjust it for population in 1980….
  
  We have become a country that does not care who leads us..so we get stuck with these idiots, losers, thieves, and perverts. This trend started about 100 years ago with Teddy and Woodrow and it has reached its end-game today….We have maybe 4 more years before it is all over for the USA…
  
  Report this comment
- dosdelgados
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:28pm
  ANDERSONTJA – I’m at RAFB. Best duty station yet. Love the area and will be sad to leave!
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:55pm
  @VRW
  And I blame the complicit, bought and paid-for, main stream media for voter apathy and their bias against Republicans in general. Their refusal to run any negative story about Obama and their rush to report, sometimes falsely or inaccurately, against any Republican.
  It’s a mighty struggle when you have the Democrats running their campaign, while they have the media in their pocket, running against you, too.
  
  Report this comment
- Oilfield_Trash
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:22pm
  @Deuteronomy22
  Christian gay,…..That’s a contadiction in terms ain’t it. You can’t be both.
  
  Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:11pm
Democrats are marxist thugs….just like their president. They frauded the American people in this election. Secession is the only answer…regardless of how we do it. If you don’t….you will never have a free, fair election…again.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:11pm
  Ya know Mitt’s idea of self-deportation might have some merit after all, I suggest you try it.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:48pm
  Have you watched what took place during the GOP primaries?
  Don’t cry foul on one side without looking at your own.
  
  Btw, Romney is another keynsian economist.
  Central planning!!!
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:59am
  @thegreatcarnac
  
  LOL. The same people shouting that the election is a fraud are the same people who openly derided foreign election monitors.
  
  Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:10pm
Vote for two days only with a Thumb print ID and signature on the ballet and red die that wont wash off for one month!!! Make the voting period a holiday!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheRagas
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:06pm
  YEAH BUDDY!!!! I would take it a step further and use different colors of dye to show which party the person voted for.
  
  Report this comment
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:10pm
By fringe do you mean the treasury secretary saying that we should set debt limit to infinity and the economist up Obama’s **** that says tax rates should be 91% and the POTUS who gave us 6Tr in debt in four years and puts in the Fed Chair that has doubled Fed balance sheets and monetizes our debt to the tune of buying 73% of our deficit?

Yeah, I’ll buy that.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:28pm
  Fringe only applies in one direction. If you advocate the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat then you’re not fringe, you’re simply forward thinking! Whereas if you advocate a flat income tax or even repealing the income tax and reducing spending to Constitutional limits, you’re a fringe nut kook gun nut insane person.
  
  Report this comment
WINNEBAGOMAN
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:09pm
At some point the Republicans just need to realize that people will follow a leader. Meaning – you need to put a person who is principled up. Even if people disagree with that candidates stance on birth-control, abortion, immigration, “women’s issues”, poverty, taxation, social justice, whatever, whatever, whatever – they will follow the guy (or gal) who stands up and says, “This is what I’m for,” and then they weren’t for it before they were against it, they were just for it. Period.

I just don’t understand the strategy. No single politician (I argue, especially a Republican) will ever appeal to 100% of the electorate. So why would that person pander to 100% of the population? You end up losing everyone because your signals get mixed. You’re a flip-flopper. The democrats learned that in 2004. Why didn’t the Republicans learn that?

You’re a pro-free-market Capitalism Conservative (I’m looking at you John McCain)? Then don’t vote for a giant bail out of banks and corporations.

I’m ready to follow a leader. That’s why I voted for Ron Paul, in the primary. I don’t agree with his views on foreign policy, but at least I can tell you with certainty what his views are. And that’s on anything!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Small_Al
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:15pm
  I think Mitt Romney was principled. What people want is Santa Clause. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com
  
  Report this comment
- The_Almighty_Creestof
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:20pm
  Oh get off it already. RP and his like are unelectable…especially nowadays. Nobody who voted for Obama is ever going to vote for someone who says “I’m sorry, you can’t have your dessert before dinner” and those who refused to vote are not going to either.
  
  Besides, you think there is gridlock with D’s against R’s now? Try D’s AND R’s against L’s! So unless your 3rd party candidate is going to rule by edict and executive order…they will fail…HARD!
  
  Report this comment
- WINNEBAGOMAN
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:08pm
  @The_Almighty: That argument was being made in the 1840′s also. The Whig Party was getting its rear-kicked in (not ironically by the Democrats), until they were deemed so unprincipled they were obsolete. Within 20 years the Whig Party was extinct and replaced by the Republican Party.
  
  This is what’s on the horizon. The Republicans either collectively get back to their principles, and stop with the “big-tent” stuff, or they well become obsolete. The big-tent stuff doesn’t work for the reasons mentioned above, and a quick study in party politics history backs this up.
  
  I’m ready for a fresh start with a new TRUE Conservative political party. It’d only be “the third” party for 2 or 3 major election cycles, before the RINO’s would have to make the real choice: Am I Conservative or am I a Democrat?
  
  Report this comment
Mr Sanders
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:08pm
“The election is over. The fight for America, however, may be just beginning.”

The fight for America started in 2001, maybe even 1988.

I think the election was about Santa Claus…. and when he gives you everything you need, how do you vote against that? Course plotted back to Europe, back to Greece.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Trigus
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:25pm
  The election is over and yes the fight for America has begun. It will start in Texas and is gaining some major backing from countries in Europe. The US helped overthrow Libya, Egypt, and now helping to overthrow Syria. Did you think other countries around the world would not show full support to US States wanting to secede?
  
  When you lower the intelligence of a group of people, then it is easier to control them. False promises and bribes are the beginning to controlling the slave class.
  
  A good poll would be to see how many voted for a President based not on: color of skin, or political party, or religious beliefs, or gifts gained, or false promises made, but on the Candidates qualifications or past records to become President?
  
  Report this comment
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:00pm
  Said the good little Rush Limbaugh sheep.
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:07pm
FDR “Presidents are selected, not elected” could this be the reason? maybe.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- longknifed
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:46pm
  RP telling the truth about CFR
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV_AML16tC8
  
  RP telling the truth of Skull and Bones
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbFDOr8QOys
  
  RP telling the truth about the war on drugs when absolutely everybody was for it, especially Charles Rangel.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxXwKPLZyVs
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:02pm
“The election is over. The fight for America, however, may be just beginning.”

BS. The fight for America is over as well. USA RIP. Unless you are talking about armed insurrection. The social engineering and media propaganda are so vast you’d be better suited to spending your time watching paint dry.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DanielJDetroit
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:00pm
…I’m still uncertain as to whether pitching a shutout in dozens of voting places constitutes fraud or not but I am quite certain that those who have done this have declared that they are enemies of Right.
They have declared, in no uncertain terms, unanimously or other-wise, their enmity toward Myself, My G*D (they boo’d HIM), and My Way of LIFE; and Yours too, if you’re a right thinking individual.
In so declaring, I can conclude that virtually Every person of color has cast their lot against me, personally and specifically, as well as against my brethren in the across spectrum.
Our faith and grace WILL defeat the hordes…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:15pm
  “several precincts in Utah (a state as reliably Republican as Cuyahoga County is reliably Democratic) showed Barack Obama carrying zero votes”
  
  It happened on both sides. Are you claiming the Romney camp is against the right as well?
  
  Report this comment
- mewnani
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:59pm
  Why did you censor God’s name? ._.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:41pm
  God’s name is not “God”. God is a type of being capable of immense supernatural powers. It is a Germanic word and predates Christianity. Thor, for example, was a god. Odin too. What you did is like saying that my name is Person, when in fact it’s actually Michael. And what the person you’re responding too did, was to take a descriptive label (God), confused it for God’s name as well, and substituted a * for the letter “o”.
  
  Now if he’d written “Y*hweh” then you’d have something (I’m assuming I pseudo-spelled that correctly).
  
  Report this comment
- sWampy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:58pm
  There is a huge difference between precincts with 20 votes all for Romney and hundreds with 1000+ votes in each voting 100% for Obama.
  
  Report this comment
- True American66
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:59pm
  No Locked…Romney supporters voted FOR GOD….Obama supporters voted FOR OBAMA….Get it?….I can’t imagine the person who calls themselves a Christian and then voted for Obama.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:31pm
  @True
  
  “Romney supporters voted FOR GOD…”
  
  If you voted for Romney because you were voting for a god, you’re doing it wrong. If you voted for Romney because you thought it was God’s will, you’re doing it wrong. If you thought it was God’s will that Romney won, you’re not only calling God fallible, but also claiming He has limits to his power (seriously, if He made the entire universe, you think Him letting Romney win would be impossible?).
  
  What happened to all those folks who said “Romney’s faith doesn’t influence my vote!” Why is it that one day it “Meh, he’s a Mormon but I don’t care about his faith,” and the next it’s “GOD HAS ABANDONED US!”? It’s ridiculous. I would prefer a Romney presidency to an Obama presidency, but this election has had ZERO impact on my Christian faith.
  
  “Obama supporters voted FOR OBAMA….Get it?”
  
  Honestly, I’d rather have voters voting for a candidate because of his views rather than voting for a candidate because they think he’s annointed by God. The first might be misguided; the second is a zealot.
  
  @Swampy
  
  I’d like some facts about that, please. Always willing to learn more, but a lot of the “fact” passed around the blogosphere is dead wrong (like the 108% turn-out stuff listed above, for example).
  
  Report this comment
- True American66
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:19pm
  @Locked
  
  You missed the point entirely…..Of course Americans should vote on the issues, but if those people are also Christians there is no way they could, in good conscience, vote for Obama….unless they believe that God is suddenly in favor of homosexuality and abortion….NOW, do you get it?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:51pm
  @True
  
  “unless they believe that God is suddenly in favor of homosexuality and abortion”
  
  I think God judges individuals on their own personal actions, NOT on what candidate they choose. Heck, Jesus Himself is specifically against divorce in all but one case (adultery), and is against remarriage after divorce in ALL cases. Yet we still have legal divorce and remarriage in the US. I don’t think God gives two figs what the US government decides to call legal or not. Legal does not mean biblical.
  
  Same with abortion, which I might add IS still legal (and Romney would never have been able to outlaw, by the way).
  
  You’re different than me. I’m a constitutional conservative, a fiscal conservative. I want the government out of my life as much as possible; I believe it’s on the individuals to decide what choices they want to make and to reap the consequences of those choices.
  
  You’re (apparently) a social conservative. You want MORE government control because you believe you know what’s best for people better than they do. And perhaps you do in some cases. But God gave us free will, and I disagree with your position of using a large government to take that away from citizens… even if the choices you make would be the ones I would make.
  
  The only difference between a social conservative and a Democrat is what choices they’d force on the citizens through a big government. It makes me ill, and is fundamentally anti-Christian and anti-US.
  
  Report this comment
Dudemau
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:59am
we need to take on Soros hat of filling the vote handler posts, but with ethical people rather than “the end justifies the means” crowd. But push for a recount. It’s not going to push anyone else to Obama but may raise the eyebrows of some who are on the fence, otherwise know as Obama supporters lite.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SamIamTwo
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:59am
The reason? Well if those who said they would not vote at all cause they did not like Mitt we would not have Obama at the helm once again.

You cut off your nose to spite your face.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SamIamTwo
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:00pm
  Oopps you know what I mean. LOL
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:59am
OF COURSE there should be a State-by-State recount! The leftist republican party conducted SUSTAINED CHEATING over a period of MONTHS. It was the dirtiest, MOST CORRUPT PRIMARY IN AMERICAN HISTORY, that ultimately CHEAT-nominated a LOSER, designed to THROW THE FIGHT and REELECT OBAMA!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- longknifed
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:12pm
  I think they only want to do a recount so they can take away Ron Paul write-ins and give them to Romney.
  
  Report this comment
- Jetstream001
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:18pm
  The GOP is simply getting what they deserved. They committed unprecedented fraud and manipulation to keep Dr. Paul from getting the nomination, and they got back their own actions.
  
  There is a God and He is a God of justice. He will not be mocked – and as I have often said – especially by the party or people who claim He is on ‘their’ side.
  
  Report this comment
- longknifed
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:48pm
  I thought “God” told us that we had to get our legs blown off and our minds shattered to protect the geopolitical interest of Israel?
gigalynx
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
Get off the grid is right, don’t buy anything you don’t have to, don’t drive the economy let it die, let it die in Obama’s hands…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jimbo_from_suwanee
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:04pm
  Barder, barder, barder… We can likely get 30 – 60% of what we need with just a little creative Barbering with our neighbors. Shut it down! Lock it off.
  
  Let the 47-Parasites wake up to an IOU from Uncle Sam instead of our tax money.
  
  Report this comment
- may40
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:05pm
  Put your cash in your mattress, try to buy only necessities(food), & let it die in the hands of those who put him back in office!
  
  Report this comment
- bava
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:05pm
  You’re getting off the grid by posting here and paying for the internet service to do so? I think I know why you idiots lost. You have one brain between the lot of you and this wasn’t your week to use it.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:19pm
  “Barder, barder, barder… We can likely get 30 – 60% of what we need with just a little creative Barbering with our neighbors. Shut it down! Lock it off. ”
  
  Are you bardering, barbering, or bartering? You seem quite confused about your own plans and actions. Might want to stop the day drinking.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:56pm
  @Bava
  
  Commercial “off the grid”. And you can’t get all the way off, but if you can decrease your “tax liability” by a significant amount compared to your income, then you do real damage to the best. For example, if I own a leather goods business (hey, I do!) and do direct bartering or AG trading of home brew on the side (just hypothetically) I offset my tax liability by a given percentage (the sales of the home brew). If I decrease my “legit” business output enough to keep me at the same income I was making without the side home brew sales, then the net tax liability decreases even further, buy my income remains the same.
  
  Again, just talking hypotheticals here. If we can get upper middle class to slowly lower their “tax liability” to middle or lower middle class standards, that’s a huge chunk of revenue taken away from the maw of the beast.
  
  Report this comment
- NoWaysTyrd
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:45pm
  to jimbo_from_suwanee
  re: “barder” and “barbering”: are you referring to bartering?
  
  Report this comment
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
Yeah, secession is pointless. Nothing our founders said or wrote would ever suggest you have the right to shake off bad government. I mean seriously people. Read the DOI. There is NOTHING in there that would suggest that you should resist tyranny. /sarc

Don’t you just love the Blaze? They wrap themselves in Washington and the founders but when push comes to shove they’d much rather you just be serf. Play the little 2 party charade. Pull the lever for RINO’s and buy the boogie man Glenn Beck books.

The only reason recounts, secession and revolution won’t happen is because we are 300 million sheep. We have Glenn soothing you all with cotton candy opium laced promises that somehow we will rise up at the ballot box and restore the republic. Shame on the Blaze and all of you other torries. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:08pm
  Quite so. It’s hard to even convince people to do basic off-radar trading and purchasing, which used to be a proud American pastime. You know, like when mechanic grandpa would fix his brewery worker neighbor’s car, and a couple of cases of brew would magically show up on grandpa’s doorstep (actually, this story isn’t actually fictional, lol). Today though? “Oh nooooes, we might get caught! OMG!”
  
  Would be interesting to see an AG off radar trading system spring up. Get out of trading funny money, get back to trading value for value (or AG).
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:27pm
  There are other options.
  
  http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml
  
  This allows you to sort countries depending on your preferences of items of liberty. As the years go by you will definitely see the United States dropping on that list as it drifts further and further into a fascist “utopia”.
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:31pm
  Yes, quite.
  
  Report this comment
- Oilfield_Trash
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:38pm
  “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”
  Thomas Paine
  
  Report this comment
Gary_K
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
The election was stolen and there are no politicians, save a very few, that have the balls to say it, let alone do anything about it.

boehner is one RINO that has to go because he arse kisses the damnocrats all the time and always caves. I wonder whose side he is really on, the NWO or the US citizen.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gary_K
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:04pm
  Case in point:
  
  http://www.infowars.com/republicans-wimp-out-fail-to-oppose-democrat-plan-to-tax-wealth-producers/
  
  Dumba$$es !
  
  Report this comment
- Gary_K
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:07pm
  Do you think boehner and the republicrats are going to stand up against this?
  
  http://www.infowars.com/republicans-wimp-out-fail-to-oppose-democrat-plan-to-tax-wealth-producers/
  
  Dont hold your breath…..
  
  Report this comment
- Gary_K
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:15pm
  oops… the second link should have been :
  
  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/treasury-secretary-geithner-lift-debt-limit-infinity
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:10pm
  Tin foil hat crazies are fuming. The election wasn’t stolen, sanity beat the greed and insanity offered by the GOP.
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 3:40am
  EXACTLY and LISTEN STUPID AMERICANS: VOTER FRAUD IS THE HISTORICAL “NORM” in AMERICAN ELECTIONS. DUH!
  
  Report this comment
sWampy
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:57am
The fraud was people voting multiple times under multiple names in multiple locations, illegals, dead people, criminals voting, not the counting. Recounting illegal votes won’t do any good at all, just give the liberals another chance to say, there is no fraud here.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 4:23pm
  There may not have been as much of that as you think. At some of the precincts where I tried to vote, I was told I couldn’t because the real guy had gotten there before me.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:56am
We’re done. USA RIP

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JD Carp
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:20pm
  I am afraid you are right, and I believe this was the last election for the USA. We have a President for Life.
  
  Report this comment
cdn1979
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:56am
a recount will not happen because a recount is not required. sometimes to got to suck it up and realize your positions suck and are not popular in the country and the majority has spoken. deal with it you bunch of sore losers. Especially when it is your fault you lost. The independents took one look at the loonie toons on the right and said, “no way am i voting with those nutbars” and went left. Not because they like obama, but because the tea party and others alike scared them. You want to know the truth? start a third party. quit corrupting the republicans. Than you will see how unpopular you are when you get less than1% of the vote. losers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dudemau
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:01pm
  Aerosmith sang a song about people like you.
  
  Report this comment
- retiredfire
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 7:24am
  If those independent thinkers you speak of looked at Romney and then went left, how do you explain Obama getting 10% fewer votes than in ’08?
  I guess those independents, who, by the way, broke in Romney’s direction, were vastly more offset by voters who didn’t like what Obama has to offer, anymore.
  Your own party showed they don’t want Obama, so much, and only stolen Republican votes could explain the “victory”.
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:53am
so neo cons how does it feel to have what you did in the primaries done to you? sucks don’t it?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:59am
  Biiiig difference….The fraud in the Presidential Election is the doom of America…And we can thank the Paulies for helping it happen…
  
  Report this comment
- FreeUsAll
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:59am
  Lol! There must be some karma in action.
  
  Report this comment
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:06pm
  @Indy,
  
  Riiiigggghhht. Cuz if the Pualies had played ball we’d have…Romney? The guy who invented Obamacare, progressive, big government, balance the budget in 35 years dude. Yeah, we’d be on the path to prosperity then buddy. /sarc
  
  Report this comment
- Jetstream001
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:26pm
  Indyguy – the “Paulites” as you call them, obviously have more principles than you do. They are not willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, because they would still be voting for evil.
  
  As a Christian, I could no more vote for a Mormon than a Muslim. Period.
  
  The GOP should have been smart enough to know that you never destroy your base in order to expand your appeal to other voters.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:49pm
  Wrong Indy.
  
  Do you have no understanding of how the market works?
  
  If one guy is selling you hemlock in a 12 ounce package, and another will sell you hemlock in a 10 ounce package and tell you it’s safe, would you buy either?
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:56pm
  Yeah right …..Obama is much better than Romney…I hereby revoke your voting cards…
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:02pm
  @Indy
  
  And people like you, would revoke voting cards based on opinion. Maybe some day you’ll understand why those of us against voting for Progressives, don’t cotton to your world view. Until then, continue to vote for Progressives as you’ve indicated that you prefer, and continue to be bewildered that less and less people stop falling into the trap you’ve fallen into.
  
  Slainte
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:43pm
  @GhostOfJefferson…And you keep on doing what you do and NONE of us will be left the ability to vote…It’s folks like you Paulies that gave us Obama…Enjoy it…You think you are so principled…Is it principled when you know there is truly a Marxist trying to destroy America and you help it happen???
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Like I said Indy, if your party puts a bad product on the market, then your party owns the reason nobody buys it. If you can’t understand that, then you clearly have no idea how markets work in real life. And if you don’t understand how markets work in real life, you’ll keep voting for progressives, as you’ve indicated just now that you will. That’s your problem, not mine, not anybody else’s. You want my vote? You have to earn it. If you can’t earn it, you have no basis to snark at me that my standards are higher than the bilge you offer up for me to buy. Take it somewhere else, snake oil is no longer regarded as a good product in these parts.
  
  Slainte
  
  Report this comment
- sWampy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:01pm
  Destroying any chance your kids have growing up in a fee nation to prove a point is beyond stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:05pm
  @GhostOfJefferson…Jefferson wants his name back since you have sullied it…
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:07pm
  Free?
  
  You mean like mandated universal health care (Romney and Obama)? You mean like a strong disrespect for the 2nd Amendment (Romney and Obama)? You mean like a continued military interference policy in the middle East (Romney and Obama)? Or do you mean like more of the war on drugs (Romney and Obama)? Or economic meddling (Romney and Obama, though in different ways). Or wait, do you mean by being beholden to corporate sponsors and money (Romney and Obama)?
  
  Keep offering duds to vote for, keep not getting votes. We can do this all century if you’d like. Or you can learn (or help the GOP learn) that if they keep up this crap, they’ll keep fading into the sunset. Their choice. Man up, accept responsibility for your bad candidates, and do something about it (the GOP I mean).
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:09pm
  @Indy
  
  Yeah, Jefferson was all about continuing to vote for British Parliament reps that promised to continue on the policies of George but smiled at the colonists. Yeah.
  
  It’s your party’s fault. Stop being a whinging child. Man up, own it, do something about it next time. Or don’t, and blame people that have stopped buying your party’s unelectable candidates on the threat of “lesser of two evils!”.
  
  Until you fix the problem, your party can go pound sand. You’re done.
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 2:49pm
  Enough of this tit for tat…Back to my book to study a little harder….What book you ask???….Arguing With Idiots…
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 3:01pm
  Gosh, ad hominem. How fresh and new.
  
  Later, old guy.
  
  Report this comment
- Puddle Duck
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:21pm
  Let me get this straight….backing the lesser of two evils is an unpallatable, unpricinpled decision but by rejecting support of said lesser evil (virtually guaranteeing a second term for the larger evil ) is somehow morally justifiable even if the nation you claim to love and want to save is lost forever because your primary candidate couldn’t cut the political mustard ? Paulies do you honestly think that RP could have won the primary process and by extension if he had managed that miracle managed to win a national election with single digit support ? I don’t know who is more delusuional at this point, those that think they can spend their way to prosperity or the ones who think that by pulling back entirely from the world stage will somehow convince the planets populace that war is now obsolete because the USA is no longer interfering with anyone.
  
  Report this comment
Jenasus
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:49am
Obama is a fraud and an imposter and has no right to be POTUS.
The election was a fraud.
Impeach Obama NOW!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:26pm
  Didn’t the first 4 years of those delusional rantings teach you anything. Zero of what you say is reality, why don’t you do something productive with your life?
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:49am
A vote count is pointless. Even if this was a case of massive voter fraud, who would be doing the recounting? The people connected to the first fraud. What’s the point.

Get off the grid folks. And I’m not necessarily speaking about power grid. The less you can do to feed this beast, the better you will be. Start trading skills, products and services with like minded people “under the radar”. Do quiet recruiting, but don’t advertise what you’re doing. I don’t know what else to tell you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:56am
  Sadly I have to agree.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
  Yes … ask Allen West … dems are experts at “finding” ballots that are marked for dems (that’s how we got Frakin AND ObamaTAX).
  
  Report this comment
- KeithOlberdink
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:00pm
  I quit contributing to the system in 2008 when this country elected a communist as it’s President.. I’m now what you would call a minimalist. I live in a 600 square foot condo and buy nothing that is not absolutely essential for survival. I won’t contribute to this beast anymore. I won’t give obama one red cent towards his success as a President. Could I afford more? Yes, but I won’t spend money because I want it all to crash so we can build a new country that is founded on our founding fathers principals.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:24pm
  “I want it all to crash so we can build a new country that is founded on our founding fathers principals.”
  
  Anarchist, extremist, or traitor? Not sure which title fits you best.
  
  As you didn’t seem to think this through, here’s something to chew on: if the country collapses, what makes you think a new country will be based on the “founding fathers principals” (sic)? When civil unrest comes through, you don’t usually get an idealistic utopia based on freedom and equality. And even if that does happen why would they listen to you, someone who is admittedly rooting for America to fail and refuses to help the country and his fellow citizens?
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:00pm
  @Locked
  
  Having a minute group pay 70% of all the taxes, then screaming that they’re not paying their fair share, is hardly good fodder to raise sympathy for “helping your fellow countrymen”, especially when the targets of the so called help are those screaming to rape the producers even harder.
  
  He stills pays a bit into the system, as I read his post. Why should anybody contribute more to the burgeoning welfare state than they have to? They don’t care whether we live or perish, as long as they get their free loot out of our hides. Explain to me the moral imperative to help people who despise you and who daily try to extract more out of you without your consent?
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:26pm
  @Jefferson
  
  I agree with your first point, but as I always have said, if you’re not leading by example then you’re not leading at all. Income redistribution is ludicrous, but actively cheering for the downfall of America and expecting things to get better is insane.
  
  “Explain to me the moral imperative to help people who despise you and who daily try to extract more out of you without your consent?”
  
  I didn’t say there’s a moral imperative to do so. But you must admit that it’s idiotic to think that someone who’s actively wanting the country to fail and has willingly turned his back on his fellow citizens is somehow going to create a better country.
  
  If you want to fix a problem, you start locally. I have no problem with bartering, getting to know your neighbors, etc. I do have a problem with someone who is cheering for the country to fail. There are ways to prepare for a pessimistic future and do your best today; that’s far different than sitting back, refusing to help make a difference, and cheering when everything around you crumbles. A person who does that is, indeed, a traitor.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 1:43pm
  Thank you for clarifying.
  
  While I have no issue with most of your post, I do disagree that holding a particular hope or viewpoint is somehow worthy of being a traitor. Traitor is a much larger word than people here think it is, it’s quite serious. Holding an opinion is hardly treason. Plus, he’s still paying into the system, albeit minimally.
  
  Oh well, you gave a reasoned response, and I thank you for that. :)
  
  Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:47am
“Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount”..Because the Marxists/Progressives are in control…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gary_K
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:58am
  Amen.
  
  Report this comment
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 12:05pm
  You forgot “…and 98% of Americans are too chicken$&!^ to do anything about it.”
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.