It's official, the election was stolen

[Pat Mustard]

Read this and weep America, because you all are just allowing fascism to grow unchecked in your midst and destroy your freedoms. First they stole your right to vote, next they'll steal your right to speak.

http://www.gregpalast.com/ethnic-votes-s...more-12932

[Excited Penguin]

Bullshit.

[Alex K]

I hate the fact of Trump becoming US president as much as the next guy, but I find these arguments along the lines of - the election was stolen because African Americans were prevented from voting because you needed an ID - I find those unconvincing and patronizing. Do I understand this correctly, African Americans need special help to fulfil voting criteria because they are somehow unable to do paperwork? I'll gladly be educated why I am being unfair, but to me the entire article reeks of bs. The language alone "There aren't enough white guys to elect Trump! Therefore it was stolen!", that just sounds pathetic, patronizing and undemocratic. Dems didn't go vote in droves because Hillary was a shit candidate, but the fact that you needed ID to vote is to blame?

[Homeless Nutter]

This election wasn't stolen. It fell out of the back of a truck...
(Can't remember who said that and about which election, but it fits)

[Pat Mustard]

I hate the fact of Trump becoming US president as much as the next guy, but I find these arguments along the lines of - the election was stolen because African Americans were prevented from voting because you needed an ID - I find those unconvincing and patronizing. Do I understand this correctly, African Americans need special help to fulfil voting criteria because they are somehow unable to do paperwork? I'll gladly be educated why I am being unfair, but to me the entire article reeks of bs. The language alone "There aren't enough white guys to elect Trump! Therefore it was stolen!", that just sounds pathetic, patronizing and undemocratic. Dems didn't go vote in droves because Hillary was a shit candidate, but the fact that you needed ID to vote is to blame?

No, voting criteria were changed in order for it to make it harder for minorities and other groups who overwhemingly favour Democrat voters to avail of their legal right to vote. Did you not notice the bit about Crosscheck which is used by republitraitor state governments to "ferret" out double registered voters. A system which will cause all people called "Mohammed Mohammed", or "James Brown" to be considered the same person and a double registered voter without performing any other check available to such systems such as checking SSI numbers, birth dates, middle names or anything else you could think over, and which has shown to overwhelmingly scrub minorities from the list.

Alex this is voter disenfranchisement, plain and simple, and only one tiny step from having brown shirts standing at every polling booth looking at who you're voting for.

[TaraJo]

I can vouch for this. Somewhat.

Before 2012, whenever I went to go vote, I was able to be in and out of there in maybe 30 minutes. That isn't too bad, right?

Thing is, it was after 2008 that I started to hear whispers about voter disenfranchisement and rumors that attempts were being made to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. It was also when the Republicans started raising a stink over voter fraud and trying to pass voter ID laws. Well, in 2012, I voted early and still had to stand in line for almost an hour. This year, when I voted early, I waited in line for about 3 hours. There are fewer places to vote, which results in lines being longer at the place we DO have. And I can certainly see how this could be prohibitively time consuming for people who have busier lives than me. I mean, I had to eat half my day off doing this, but if you work multiple jobs or if you have children to deal with, you're out of luck. And this is in a state that's already solidly in the red territory. I have to wonder, if this kinds of time disenfranchisement was part of the plan, how much worse do you think it was in battleground states? How long do you think the lines were in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida?

[abaris]

Do I understand this correctly, African Americans need special help to fulfil voting criteria because they are somehow unable to do paperwork?

While I don't fully subscribe to the alarmism, there's more to it. On the one hand it's not as easy to get a day off to file all the necessary paperwork for these people as it is for white collor workers. That goes for poor people in general, not only blacks. On the other hand losing a days wages for filing paperwork might also be an issue if you hardly earn enough to scrape by. Also you have to keep in mind that worker protection isn't what it is in Europe. If you don't play ball, your boss can more or less fire you on a whim. At least in menial jobs that don't have elaborate contracts.

I remember an instance 12 years ago, where the boss of a certain business forced his workers to attend a Bush speech, when he was up for reelection. Far as I recall the incident, it was you go there, you won't get paiid for the day, but if you don't attend, you're fired.

[Cato]

I love it, atheist who doesn't believe in God due to the paucity of evidence immediately accepts election conspiracy without evidence.

If this is so widespread, where are the names of all those that were actually denied voting privileges? Seems to me with the vitriolic reaction to the results, disenfranchised people would be shouting from the rooftops and be easily identified; it's just not happening.

[chimp3]

How many millions of democrats that voted in 2012 did not show up in 2016?

[Aegon]

That was just one big sales pitch to get me to buy Greg Palast's book, wasn't it?