For years now, the Democrats have treated any attempt to reduce voter fraud as "suppression of minority voters." The two are not related, but the lack of truth in an argument never stopped the left from still making that argument. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly proper for a state to purge its voter rolls of the names of people who had not voted for the last two cycles (which basically comes to eight years.) The left went crazy after that ruling. SCOTUS was going over to the dark side and engaging in racist voter suppression, or so we were told. There was no need to purge the rolls or so we were told.
But here's a bit of news for the left. It's just a small fact about the 12th District of Ohio that held a special election on Tuesday. In 2016, that district had 170 registered voters who were listed as being more than 116 years old. That's pretty good since the oldest person alive is less than 116. Even better, in 2016 there were 72 of these super elderly voters over 116 who VOTED in the presidential election.
These may be real people whose age is listed incorrectly, or they may be fraudulently listed voters who don't exist except on paper. We don't know. We all should want this mess cleared up, however. Strangely, however, the Democrats don't. Ask yourself why that is.
But here's a bit of news for the left. It's just a small fact about the 12th District of Ohio that held a special election on Tuesday. In 2016, that district had 170 registered voters who were listed as being more than 116 years old. That's pretty good since the oldest person alive is less than 116. Even better, in 2016 there were 72 of these super elderly voters over 116 who VOTED in the presidential election.
These may be real people whose age is listed incorrectly, or they may be fraudulently listed voters who don't exist except on paper. We don't know. We all should want this mess cleared up, however. Strangely, however, the Democrats don't. Ask yourself why that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment