Hypocrisy alert: DNC verified voter IDs before chairman election

Ironic hypocricy at it's finest at the DNC meeting where they "elected" a new Chairperson.

The "election" was apparently going to be done done "electronically" but the "acting" Chair Donna Brazile said there was problems.

She insisted the vote be done with paper instead.

Her "reason" for paper you ask?

Well it was for validation and checking everybody's IDs !!!!


Hypocrisy alert: DNC verified voter IDs before chairman election

Democrats fight voter ID laws tooth and nail while telling us there’s no such thing as voter fraud. Naturally, anyone who disagrees is a racist bigot who wants to disenfranchise minorities from voting. But, the American Mirror reported, Democrats not only required voter ID to participate in the election of their new chairman, they verified those IDs in order to prevent — wait for it — voter fraud.

“We have to make sure that we can not just count the ballots but verify every name and signature,” Brazile said as party members began applauding. “And I want to make sure that at the conclusion of all of our votes, that you, the members of this party, will be able to review those ballots.”

Here's Professor Brazile explaining the whole thing right here......

Donna Brazile's picture should be displayed next to hypocrite in all dictionaries.

It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it.

As the general elections are for citizens.... it would only make sense to verify that the voters are citizens.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

You missed the point of it all.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

the sane re-write:

" It was a national election. It makes sense that only registered citizens would be allowed to vote in it.< snip the gargage > "

see how easy that was

a reply to: enlightenedservant



Don't take things so serious.

a reply to: xuenchen

What a silly person, we ALL KNOW VOTER FRAUD DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!! I mean, the libs have been screaming this for years now. And for one of their own to be so stupid as to forget the mantra, well, color me surprised.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

Yea, those other elections don't really mean much so voter ID for them is just wrong. Got it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

WOW
Guess other elections should just let anyone vote then?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

WOW
Guess other elections should just let anyone vote then?

I'd like to see voter ID laws passed in New York and California, so I can watch the left lose their minds over a fair election.

but I thought that requiring ID`s to vote deprived people of their right to vote? seriously, do the democrats have any credibility left at all?
after everything that has happened in the last 6 months, anyone who still supports the democrat party is just brainwashed fanboy,or fangirl as the case may be.

originally posted by: Tardacus
but I thought that requiring ID`s to vote deprived people of their right to vote? seriously, do the democrats have any credibility left at all?
after everything that has happened in the last 6 months, anyone who still supports the democrat party is just brainwashed fanboy,or fangirl as the case may be.

They try that argument over and over, but anyone with any common sense knows it takes the same if not less effort to get an ID as it does to register and vote legally.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

WOW
Guess other elections should just let anyone vote then?

I'd like to see voter ID laws passed in New York and California, so I can watch the left lose their minds over a fair election.

I think with the current circumstances in the government, nationwide voter ID should be passed and those who have a problem with it can get over it or figure out how to go get that free ID that you would need to cash a check. It would be a good way to prove those who oppose this are #heads with a very easy test. When they complain about the voter ID law, give them a check and see if they can cash it. If they can, they are idiots who just like to stir the pot. If they can't, then you will have a verified person who should likely be in a special home somewhere, but can be helped to get their ID on the way to that special place that cares for the mentally incompetent.

Why does the DNC HATE poor people ?

Why,why,why,why ?

Hypocrisy indeed.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

think about what you said there. it a party election. just a party election, not nearly as important as a national election where people that get elected are actually writing bills that become laws, elect presidents that set policy.

now tell me which one makes more sense to make sure party members are allowed to vote.
i know my answer, and i bet i know yours.

are people really surprised?

even though the dems cant show proof of voter fraud, they decide to circumvent it... hypocrisy is not the word that should be brought up here. its corruption.

if this was the dealings of foreign governments, we would be all over it to point it out. i.e. if Russia or Israel were to do similar tactics in their election process.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

The reality is, you are the one incapable of acknowledging your own bias and hypocrisy to keep your own narrative alive.

a reply to: DrStevenBrule

But Donna Brazile is a Christian!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It was a party election. It makes sense that only registered party members would be allowed to vote in it. But as always, you choose the most biased sources to skew the narrative.

and Democrats know what they're capable of..