YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) Well yes, they couldn't possibly prosecute on vote. What they COULD do, but won't and shouldn't, is fine people for changing their registration for fraudlent purpose. For example, someone dumb enough to write "FOR ONE DAY ONLY" on the registration change card could be fined or cited. But again, they won't. Even then, someone could say I felt strongly enough in favor of X candidate that I wanted to make my voice heard but I didn't want a permanent party switch. There is no way in hell they could prosecute this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) Well yes, they couldn't possibly prosecute on vote. What they COULD do, but won't and shouldn't, is fine people for changing their registration for fraudlent purpose. For example, someone dumb enough to write "FOR ONE DAY ONLY" on the registration change card could be fined or cited. But again, they won't. But see, even though I signed the little card that says I'm a "registered Democrat", what exactly does that mean? I can shred my registration the next day, just because. I mean, yes, you're right, they won't prosecute on something like this, but ... in reality, what can they do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) How do you prove that he actually voted for her? Voting records are private, right? He could have voted for Obama for reasons he thinks McCain can beat Obama. The INTENTION was pretty obvious since he bragged afterwards that he messed with the democratic primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) In the case where I stated the guy made a post on a message board, he stated he was a Republican (well, insinuated) and then was given a Democratic ballot. Yes there needs to be some more data collected to fully prove, but the intention is pretty obvious. Someone can say whatever they want in public or on a message board. They cannot prove how he voted in the booth. If they can do so, then the whole damn process will be exposed as a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) In the case where I stated the guy made a post on a message board, he stated he was a Republican (well, insinuated) and then was given a Democratic ballot. Yes there needs to be some more data collected to fully prove, but the intention is pretty obvious. I'm not registered with either party, but I have said publicly that I was going to "vote for Obama before I vote against him"... So what? That's *FRAUD* now? Wow, you're drinking some major kool aid. I guess it was ok when the Democrats did it in Michigan, isn't it? It cracks me up how people get their panties in a wad and start running around with the lawsuits and all that s***, but in Michigan, it's "just part of the process". People like this are hypocritical douchebags. I better stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 For the guy/girl that was dumb enough to actually write "for one day only" on his ballot... lol Vote for whoever you want to vote for, but if you're going to advertise that you may as well write "I'm deliberately trying to subvert the democratic process" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) I'm not registered with either party, but I have said publicly that I was going to "vote for Obama before I vote against him"... So what? That's *FRAUD* now? Wow, you're drinking some major kool aid. I guess it was ok when the Democrats did it in Michigan, isn't it? It cracks me up how people get their panties in a wad and start running around with the lawsuits and all that s***, but in Michigan, it's "just part of the process". People like this are hypocritical douchebags. I better stop now. Oh, you are doing just fine. They walked out on the plank. Keep sawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) I'm not registered with either party, but I have said publicly that I was going to "vote for Obama before I vote against him"... So what? That's *FRAUD* now? In Ohio, yes. It's tampering and fraud. We can argue if it should be a law or not. but in Ohio it IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 And yes, there is absolutely no way to reasonably prosecute this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) In Ohio, yes. It's tampering and fraud. We can argue if it should be a law or not. but in Ohio it IS. It cannot be proven! Period. No way can they convict anyone for saying anything before they step into the voting booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) I guess it was ok when the Democrats did it in Michigan, isn't it? It cracks me up how people get their panties in a wad and start running around with the lawsuits and all that s***, but in Michigan, it's "just part of the process". People like this are hypocritical douchebags. I better stop now. I dont think what they did is right. Elections are supposed to be where you vote for people you like, not against people you dont like. but in Michigan it isnt ILLEGAL there. It IS in Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) I dont think what they did is right. Elections are supposed to be where you vote for people you like, not against people you dont like. but in Michigan it isnt ILLEGAL there. It IS in Ohio. I can vote for or against anyone I choose for whatever reason I choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) I can vote for or against anyone I choose for whatever reason I choose. then let's get ride of the law in Ohio and it wont matter anymore. Let me be clear, I am on YOUR side on this. While i dont think you should be voting "against" someone, it is your right to do so. I am just arguing leagally, they may have a case in Ohio. I agree with whoever posted earlier that there is almost NO chance this gets prosecuted. but they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) then let's get ride of the law in Ohio and it wont matter anymore. Let me be clear, I am on YOUR side on this. While i dont think you should be voting "against" someone, it is your right to do so. I am just arguing leagally, they may have a case in Ohio. I agree with whoever posted earlier that there is almost NO chance this gets prosecuted. but they can. They CAN'T. If they do, the whole system is exposed as a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Apparently her lie isn't worth removing from her website. See paragraph 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Obama Releases ‘00-’06 Tax Returns, Calls on Clinton to Follow Suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:36 AM) The voters can be fined for this. Could prevent voters in future voting states to think twice. Its karma, and the pouting about it is hilarious. The democrats suggested and failed at doing the samething in Michigan, and no one seemed to think it was a bad idea then. Now because someone might have been successful at it, now it is a crime? That is too rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Obama Releases ‘00-’06 Tax Returns, Calls on Clinton to Follow Suit. But Hillary is too busy campaigning to release her taxes. She does them all herself and only she has the key to the safe they are in you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) Its karma, and the pouting about it is hilarious. The democrats suggested and failed at doing the samething in Michigan, and no one seemed to think it was a bad idea then. Now because someone might have been successful at it, now it is a crime? That is too rich. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) The Fallacy of "The Surge" PS: I wrote this article Edited March 25, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) The Fallacy of "The Surge" It's not just that, but the Awakening groups in Anbar province too thanks to the AQ idiots overplaying their hand. Honestly that was just pure luck, it wasn't really the result of any strategic success and it had nothing to do with troop levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Obama Releases ‘00-’06 Tax Returns, Calls on Clinton to Follow Suit. I am going to predict there will be a few things in there that aren't "good". But this will be shadowed by anything the Clintons finally get around to releasing. SHe has some MAJOR skeletons in the closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) I am going to predict there will be a few things in there that aren't "good". But this will be shadowed by anything the Clintons finally get around to releasing. SHe has some MAJOR skeletons in the closet. No doubt about that. But the Clinton's have been in spotlight for a long time. Who knows if Obama can stand up to the same, extended scrutiny? I hear the bones of Rev. Wright quite loudly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) No doubt about that. But the Clinton's have been in spotlight for a long time. Who knows if Obama can stand up to the same, extended scrutiny? Clinton has stuff that hasnt been "public" in a long time. I heard an interview with Dick Morris the other day about all her skeletons they have tried to hide int he past and are most likely hiding today. Namely Bill CLinton's conections to a group in Dubai. Edited March 25, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts