In response to:

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

latebloomer Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 7:54 AM
More evidence: Unfortunately, there is no provision in the law for reversing a totally fraudulent election result, should it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no incentive to take the steps to acquire the necessary proof. Unfortunately, creating said incentive- thus throwing every reasonably close election into the courts- would be a cure worse than the disease. Prevention is the only responsible palliative. Which brings a thought- beware of likely Democrat proposals to "remedy" voter fraud after the fact, for the reason stated above.
Illbay Wrote: Nov 11, 2012 7:57 AM
That's why I always chuckle at "poll watchers" reports of shenanigans. They had it repeated ad nauseum here in Harris County, Texas (Houston). So? The Asst. DA responsible for investigating just yawned.

There were many factors that hurt Mitt Romney and favored Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The Democrats portrayed Romney in the worst light possible; as a wealthy, out of touch millionaire who wanted to return women to the 1800's. The left wing media predictably did everything it could to perpetuate that false caricature. Obama's race was an advantage; voters of all persuasions, particularly minorities, still cannot get over the allure of the first black president. The 47% of Americans on welfare were predisposed to vote for the food stamp president over Romney, wanting the free goodies to keep...