Tweeted a link to the post beneath this. Got this in response.
http://twitter.com/SolidGraniteNH/status/397759915772485632
It sure sounds like a crime!
Stealing votes by asking people who clearly have no intention of ever living here to vote here is an irresponsible, unethical, and immoral act, whether you can get someone to claim it is illegal or not.
And Domicile has a legal meaning in almost every state but New Hampshire so are the progressive Democrats (or other advocates) in the Granite State, who pack checklists with out-of-state voters, complicit in punishable crimes in other jurisdictions that result from engaging in dual registration and/or voting in another state that you really do not live in?
Do they even care?
Of course not. Telling people this is OK, just to get their vote, is selfish and manipulative. It is a deliberate act that embraces the theft of someone else’s legitimate right to decide who will represent them or how their wages will be spent, by erasing their vote. So you vote fraud advocates are just using these chumps to pad your vote counts.
But claiming it is legal in New Hampshire does not make it legal in the actual state where that voter lives outside New Hampshire. By telling them it is OK to vote here, have you put any thought into whether it is OK where they actually live? If someone you convinced to dual register discovers that someone voted as them back home, you’ll just cut them loose. You don’t give a damn about anything or anyone, you just want to win elections. Why should you care if it is illegal as long as you get away with it in the comfort of your liberal-judge approves water-boarding of the definition of domicile.
Is it legal? Is it a crime? Will, isn’t that subjective?
There are plenty of immoral and unethical “criminal acts” that have been deemed legal by the force of the state, throughout history. Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation (all Democrat policies).
There have also been Democrats, right here in New Hampshire, hypocrats to the last, who said that the law is the law and it should be left as it is, unless…. is law they do not like. Like the domicile law.
That is what happened in New Hampshire. They didn’t like that law. It prevented them from stuffing ballot boxes with out of state voters. So got a liberal judge to rubber stamp an out of state suit filed in the name of some out of state college kids who claimed the right to vote here–half of whom never did. The result of that was to soften up the domicile law (again) which opened up the flood gates to almost 100,000 same day registrations, at least 20,000 of which voted with no proof of residency, or identity. Thousands of those voters (so far) disappeared as if, other than voting in New Hampshire on election day, they never existed.
There are a few examples of Republicans having connections to out of state voters who cast votes in the Granite State. I do not advocate any of that. But not nearly as many as Democrats–not even close. And the only people (ONLY PEOPLE) I know of who express confidence or support for the kind of electoral abuse that could let 20,000 people vote without ID or proof of residency and then vanish without even blinking is the New Hampshire Democrat party.
Democrats are the only people I know of who want it like this and are defending it. They must therefore the ones benefiting. We know this to be true because if they were not to their advantage they’d be tripping over themselves to stop it.
No one on the left is trying to stop it but they are defending it.
