• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

Gulliver Foyle said:
No, the NYT regurgitated the DoI's unfounded allegations and the unverified word of a former Pelolta staffer.

Until they bring receipts, I'm going to assume that the NYT is operating to their usual journalistic standards.
Click to expand...

Believe whatever you want, I don't give a ◊◊◊◊. The article said they read text messages discussing the plan and confirmed the story first-hand with the staffers that received the instructions.

I believe the NYT is a reliable and trustworthy source. If you don't, cool. Again, no skin off my ass and if you want to disregard it then by all means. It doesn't seem to have bothered many people in Alaska either, but just denying something happened is pretty lame if you ask me. It happened, and if we aren't going to call out the bad ◊◊◊◊ that the Dems do then I don't want to be a Dem either.
 
plague311 said:
Believe whatever you want, I don't give a ◊◊◊◊. The article said they read text messages discussing the plan and confirmed the story first-hand with the staffers that received the instructions.

I believe the NYT is a reliable and trustworthy source. If you don't, cool. Again, no skin off my ass and if you want to disregard it then by all means. It doesn't seem to have bothered many people in Alaska either, but just denying something happened is pretty lame if you ask me. It happened, and if we aren't going to call out the bad ◊◊◊◊ that the Dems do then I don't want to be a Dem either.
Click to expand...
I think it's great that Dems are actually fighting back with the dirty tricks Republicans have been doing for years. Watching Republicans whine and cry about it now is just the cherry on top.
 
ZiprHead said:
I think it's great that Dems are actually fighting back with the dirty tricks Republicans have been doing for years. Watching Republicans whine and cry about it now is just the cherry on top.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. MAGA can cry me a river. ◊◊◊◊ them all! All's fair in love and war, so if the GOP wants politics to be a war, Dems can fight back too.
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
I think it's great that Dems are actually fighting back with the dirty tricks Republicans have been doing for years. Watching Republicans whine and cry about it now is just the cherry on top.
Click to expand...

Sure, as I said it doesn't bother me much. It isn't the first time and won't be the last, but that doesn't mean we just deny that it happened. It happened, and it doesn't seem to be bothering anyone but righties, so let their heads explode.

As one Alaskan said in the article I posted previously, if you're not smart enough to know the difference between incumbent and non-incumbent then I have no time for that nonsense.
 
plague311 said:
Sure, as I said it doesn't bother me much. It isn't the first time and won't be the last, but that doesn't mean we just deny that it happened. It happened, and it doesn't seem to be bothering anyone but righties, so let their heads explode.

As one Alaskan said in the article I posted previously, if you're not smart enough to know the difference between incumbent and non-incumbent then I have no time for that nonsense.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People get bent out of shape when fliers go up in a traditionally Black neighborhood claiming Election Day is a Wednesday. Or telling people they could be arrested or fined if they have outstanding warrants and show up to vote. Or warning NH voters to skip the primary and "save" their vote for November. If you don't know the day of the election, or you're a criminal, I don't have time for that nonsense.
 
It seems completely legal, presuming no-one actually changes their name to run, how would a law on this work? If your name is similar to another candidate's you're not allowed to run? How similar? Who chooses which one gets to run out of the two? Does it only count if it's the same race, the constituency the same state? Should Donald Jessica Trump(D) of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Arkansas be allowed to run for Town Dogcatcher or might the local MAGAs be tricked into voting for him? No way could such a law be constitutional.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It seems completely legal, presuming no-one actually changes their name to run, how would a law on this work? If your name is similar to another candidate's you're not allowed to run? How similar? Who chooses which one gets to run out of the two? Does it only count if it's the same race, the constituency the same state? Should Donald Jessica Trump(D) of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Arkansas be allowed to run for Town Dogcatcher or might the local MAGAs be tricked into voting for him? No way could such a law be constitutional.
Click to expand...

In addition to all that, many of the maga weirdoes on the MSN forums are screaming their tiny-little brains out that Peltola is going down for perjury.

Stupid idiots don't realize (or don't care) that in order for it to be perjury, she has to be under oath.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
Agreed. People get bent out of shape when fliers go up in a traditionally Black neighborhood claiming Election Day is a Wednesday. Or telling people they could be arrested or fined if they have outstanding warrants and show up to vote. Or warning NH voters to skip the primary and "save" their vote for November. If you don't know the day of the election, or you're a criminal, I don't have time for that nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm slow on the uptick so I might not be getting the point here. I am a criminal and still vote.

I think the point of what the gentleman from Alaska was trying to get across is that voters do have some personal responsibility to educate themselves about the ballot and voting process, including who is on it. There are tons of resources out there, and a bunch that don't require internet to access, including at the voting centers.

Knowingly spreading dis\misinformation (lying about voting days or who can vote) and recruiting a rep with a similar name don't seem to be apples to apples to me.
 
Putting someone up for election is not against any rules, but doing so, not in order to get that person elected, but rather to intentionally harvest a number of mistaken votes intended to go to an opponent of the person you really do want elected is dishonest in pretty much exactly the same way as deliberately lying to voters about when polling day falls. Both acts are intended to deceive.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Putting someone up for election is not against any rules, but doing so, not in order to get that person elected, but rather to intentionally harvest a number of mistaken votes intended to go to an opponent of the person you really do want elected is dishonest in pretty much exactly the same way as deliberately lying to voters about when polling day falls. Both acts are intended to deceive.
Click to expand...
I give you Count Binface.
 
ZiprHead said:
I think it's great that Dems are actually fighting back with the dirty tricks Republicans have been doing for years. Watching Republicans whine and cry about it now is just the cherry on top.
Click to expand...
This lady... Jojo, has a few thing to say about that...

LANGUAGE WARNING:
This lady does not mince her words. She makes liberal use (no pun intended) of expletives and colorful metaphors when it comes to describing MAGA morons, imploring Democrats to stop taking the high road and start punching down...

Turn the volume down or use headphones if there are young kids around....


www.facebook.com

92K reactions · 19K shares | In the history of catastrophically stupid cults, you MAGA lobotomy laureates are—hands down, without a doubt, bar none—the f’ng dumbest. And it’s not even close.#maga | JoJo From Jerz

In the history of catastrophically stupid cults, you MAGA lobotomy laureates are—hands down, without a doubt, bar none—the f’ng dumbest. And it’s not even close.#maga
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
NOTE: I'm hoping the mods understand the spirit in which this was posted and allow it to stand without sanction...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Putting someone up for election is not against any rules, but doing so, not in order to get that person elected, but rather to intentionally harvest a number of mistaken votes intended to go to an opponent of the person you really do want elected is dishonest in pretty much exactly the same way as deliberately lying to voters about when polling day falls. Both acts are intended to deceive.
Click to expand...

I mean, I guess? I view one as trying to keep someone from voting, which to me is a higher degree of severity because it isn't about 1 candidate at that point. It's about the whole ballot. In my state we have 2 very important amendments on the ballot: Raising the threshold to pass an amendment to 60% from 50% and free lunches for school kids.

Lying to keep someone from voting entirely, to me, does more damage as it keeps them from voting for their city, county and other state reps vs. it being about 1 candidate. If we boil it down to "acts (that) are intended to deceive" we'd have to include everything from the primaries on.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Putting someone up for election is not against any rules, but doing so, not in order to get that person elected, but rather to intentionally harvest a number of mistaken votes intended to go to an opponent of the person you really do want elected is dishonest in pretty much exactly the same way as deliberately lying to voters about when polling day falls. Both acts are intended to deceive.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder how many Alaskans pretty much implicitly knew or suspected that already and the NYT just called out the elephant in the room. I'm thinking it won't move the needle that much.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It seems completely legal, presuming no-one actually changes their name to run, how would a law on this work? If your name is similar to another candidate's you're not allowed to run? How similar? Who chooses which one gets to run out of the two? Does it only count if it's the same race, the constituency the same state? Should Donald Jessica Trump(D) of ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Arkansas be allowed to run for Town Dogcatcher or might the local MAGAs be tricked into voting for him? No way could such a law be constitutional.
Click to expand...
Well let's see what the Cato Institute has to say on the matter...
Cato Institute said:
... Some have demanded criminal prosecution, although at this point I have not seen anyone point to any criminal law, Alaska or federal, that prohibits the central act involved here, recruiting a same-name candidate. ...
Click to expand...
There's a lot more and worth the read, but basically, unseemly, but not a crime. Also not the first time, some as recent as the last election in 2024.
Cato Institute said:
At least two much more recent episodes, both arranged by Republicans, ran aground legally due to violations of specific state laws. ...
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
I mean, I guess? I view one as trying to keep someone from voting, which to me is a higher degree of severity because it isn't about 1 candidate at that point. It's about the whole ballot. In my state we have 2 very important amendments on the ballot: Raising the threshold to pass an amendment to 60% from 50% and free lunches for school kids.

Lying to keep someone from voting entirely, to me, does more damage as it keeps them from voting for their city, county and other state reps vs. it being about 1 candidate. If we boil it down to "acts (that) are intended to deceive" we'd have to include everything from the primaries on.
Click to expand...
First, I think it's a dirty trick, even if not illegal.

It also seems completely pointless, if I understand Alaska's ranked choice voting system correctly.
The whole point of ranked choice voting is that it prevents a third party candidate from acting as a spoiler for similarly aligned major party candidates. (Also, it has the potential of making a third party candidate viable...but that's another discussion.)

For the democratic candidate to benefit, a voter would have to vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan and not choose the "right" Dan Sullivan in the second, third, or fourth choices. Or placing them after the Democratic candidate.

It's also possible that some Democratic voters may try to vote for this Dan Sullivan with the democrat as second choice just to pump up the vote count for a third party and mistakenly vote for the Republican instead.

Seems unlikely to have any real effect, from what I can see, even if it does confuse people.

(Wish we had ranked choice here.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom