Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...
We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.
I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?
But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?
A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.
Is this wrong?
We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.
It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...
We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.
I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?
But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?
A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.
Is this wrong?
We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.
It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (
show quote)
It ok if republicans do. And in a state controlled by a future president.
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...
We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.
I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?
But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?
A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.
Is this wrong?
We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.
It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (
show quote)
You claim that people are being prosecuted, but you don't say what they are charged with, why?
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...
We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.
I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?
But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?
A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.
Is this wrong?
We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.
It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (
show quote)
Yes, it is election fraud. Democrats in Illinois have perfected it.
RascalRiley wrote:
It ok if republicans do. And in a state controlled by a future president.
Hypocritical comment from an ignorant ELWNJ.
LogicallyRight wrote:
Yes, it is election fraud. Democrats in Illinois have perfected it.
If I had said that about republicans the republicans on OPP would be demanding proof from a right wing source.
I am not so naive as to think that democrats are not as corrupt as republicans.
Own it for once. Republicans rig elections.
RascalRiley wrote:
If I had said that about republicans the republicans on OPP would be demanding proof from a right wing source.
I am not so naive as to think that democrats are not as corrupt as republicans.
Own it for once. Republicans rig elections.
Ah, but you single out Republicans....hypocrisy runs deep in you - own it for once.
American Vet wrote:
Ah, but you single out Republicans....hypocrisy runs deep in you - own it for once.
Vet, you are beyond my scope of reasoning.
RascalRiley wrote:
Vet, you are beyond my scope of reasoning.
Don’t blame me for your limited abilities and shortcomings.
American Vet wrote:
Don’t blame me for your limited abilities and shortcomings.
I do not. I am ADHD. I enjoy a more wondering why point of view. Nothing is forever
RascalRiley wrote:
I do not. I am ADHD. I enjoy a more wondering why point of view. Nothing is forever
Damn it! My wife just won our bet. I thought you were just dumb, not mental.
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...
We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.
I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?
But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?
A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.
Is this wrong?
We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.
It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (
show quote)
Sounds a little tin foil. Not out of the realm of happening AT ALL. You're right, party doesn't matter, but if you made it clearer it would help.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.