because it's not a problem. If anything it was a mistake but doesn't equate to voter fraud. Willard is probably doing this to distract from the fact that he won't release his tax returns.

Then why the invalid return address?? Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's a real issue. Why not find out and put the issue to bed? If there's a problem, then drop the hammer on someone, if not, then our officials have done the due diligence needed to maintain the integrity of our voting system.

Oh I don't disagree, but to assert that an incorrect address equates fraud, as the article attempts desperately to do, is just sensationalist bunk. Which is why I pointed out that the source is essentially a blog on a conservative website. They have motivation to make this into something far larger than it is without any evidence to suggest the fraud assertions they assert.

I'm just sick of this sort of **** coming from both sides. People jumping to conclusions and always assuming the worst case scenario. I mean you've got the stupid thread about Mitt's offshore accounts equating asset protection with tax fraud. You've got people blowing up over the President's birth certificate STILL. You've got a bunch of "kids" playing "gotcha" and frankly, they're not that good at it. If you're going to "get" someone, there should probably be something to actually get before you start blowing it up and making a big deal.

Due diligence...

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

There wasn't assertion of fraud, just the question of why the return address wasn't valid. They weren't playing "gotcha", they were asking for the due diligence that YOU support.

Read the report from PJ: The PJ Tatler Why Is the Voter Participation Center Spoofing the Virginia State Board of Elections’ Return Address?

It asks questions that you are supporting having answered, so where's the attempt to accuse of fraud?? Is there an implication by virtue of the need for the questions to be asked?? Absolutely, but that's the nature of the situation.

And as usual, the liberals refuse to address the issue and instead prefer to distract from it since they don't have a legitimate answer.

__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Bull****. The OP is doing exactly that. In the second sentence it asserts fraud as "schennagians".

Actually, the OP is playing the gotcha game.

First, you don't get to shift the goal posts by bringing up a different article to run away from the assertions of the OP. The OP is the OP and that is the source the poster chose to use to support his claim. That post is an assertion of fraud and playing "gotcha". Plain and simple. Second, the PJ report, though investigative, is not the appropriate venue by which to get anything done about the problem. Like the TN case, it needs to be handled by state and federal officials so that it can be a legal issue.

The OP was not an implication, it was an assertion.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. This article must be hitting home.

__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Of course it's not a problem to you. It's a Democratic group that is doing it and we all know they can do no wrong. They are probably as lilly white as ACORN.

__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

The OP:

__________________
Let's be clear. Local police departments should not look and act like occupying armies. ~Bernie Sanders

Just because there is a right way and a wrong way to do things does not mean I support voter fraud. Try again.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.