Jump to content

Voter Fraud is not the problem, ELECTION fraud is


RatkoVarda
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cyber Ninjas conned the rubes, cashed out the millions in donations, stashed it in the Caribbean, nothing is left but the shell.

Really, just a perfect con.

AZ Republic newspaper asked for $1K sanctions a day for not turning over docs; judge said no, make it $50K a day, starting tomorrow.

Ninja attorney wants out as he has not been paid, judge said nope.

Board of Election released 90 page doc showing these idiots did not know their ass from their elbow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
9 minutes ago, buddha said:

you'll have first amendment issues.  

why would there be 1st amendment issues associated with requiring truth in official government speech? How would it be different from sanctioning outright lying by court officials - which is  punishable in the judicial branch. 

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

why would there be 1st amendment issues associated with requiring truth in official government speech? How would it be different from sanctioning outright lying by court officials - which is certainly punishable in the judicial branch. 

the government is punishing people for speech.

you'll be fine when they arrest stacey abrams for her comments on the georgia election?

let's not pass laws to placate twitter, lets consider the wider implications of what enforcement of that law will look like when the people in power are not your friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 3:31 PM, CMRivdogs said:

Let's codify it nationally

 

All of us would benefit more if it was illegal to lie before the election and during the campaign.

We already have a sitting POTUS claiming the next election will be illegitimate.  Then there were people like Hillary, Stacy Abrams and Trump claim their election were illegitimate.  Its not just one side of the aisle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, buddha said:

the government is punishing people for speech.

you'll be fine when they arrest stacey abrams for her comments on the georgia election?

let's not pass laws to placate twitter, lets consider the wider implications of what enforcement of that law will look like when the people in power are not your friends.

that would be the key though wouldn't it?- it would seem to me you can require 'official' speech that comes out of someone's magisterial function to meet a standard of truth. Sure private time twitter would have to be something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

that would be the key though wouldn't it?- it would seem to me you can require 'official' speech that comes out of someone's magisterial function to meet a standard of truth. Sure private time twitter would have to be something else.

the law attempts to ban speech by candidates for public office, not just public officials.  that's a first amendment violation.  moreover, what is a "lie" about election results?  did hillary clinton lie when she questioned the legitimacy of trump's victory?  did stacey abrams lie when she said kemp's win was not legitimate?

i am not making an equivalence between what trump did and what hillary and abrams did.  but when you pass a vague law like that, you open up the possibility of one party using it against its political enemies.  i think its unnecessary and could be extremely damaging.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buddha said:

the law attempts to ban speech by candidates for public office, not just public officials.  that's a first amendment violation.  moreover, what is a "lie" about election results?  did hillary clinton lie when she questioned the legitimacy of trump's victory?  did stacey abrams lie when she said kemp's win was not legitimate?

i am not making an equivalence between what trump did and what hillary and abrams did.  but when you pass a vague law like that, you open up the possibility of one party using it against its political enemies.  i think its unnecessary and could be extremely damaging.

fair enough - I really wasn't thinking about this law in particular as much as the concept of sanctioning an elected official who is dishonest in an official administrative (as opposed to political) capacity. The question of what to do about candidates - or for that matter elected political leaders that lie is a another question. It's basically something that the society has completely let get away from itself. Back in the day, there was a kind of standard about bald faced lying in office. You certainly could always get away with a ton of shading of reality, but there was still a level of of denial of reality that held. It was  still strong enough 50 yrs ago that Nixon was forced from office over it,  but for me there was a real turning point with Clinton. Regardless of whether it was a question that never should have been asked or the topic was irrelevant to his official duties, allowing him to remain in office after having lied under oath was simply a terrible civic precedent to set and IMO has made any kind of political truth telling standard impossible ever since. The irony is that he could have admitted everything and still would have left office with high approval ratings and Al Gore as President. In my book he turned out to be a great fool in the end. And I think our politics has paid a  price ever since. I wish I knew how to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

fair enough - I really wasn't thinking about this law in particular as much as the concept of sanctioning an elected official who is dishonest in an official administrative (as opposed to political) capacity. The question of what to do about candidates - or for that matter elected political leaders that lie is a another question. It's basically something that the society has completely let get away from itself. Back in the day, there was a kind of standard about bald faced lying in office. You certainly could always get away with a ton of shading of reality, but there was still a level of of denial of reality that held. It was  still strong enough 50 yrs ago that Nixon was forced from office over it,  but for me there was a real turning point with Clinton. Regardless of whether it was a question that never should have been asked or the topic was irrelevant to his official duties, allowing him to remain in office after having lied under oath was simply a terrible civic precedent to set and IMO has made any kind of political truth telling standard impossible ever since. The irony is that he could have admitted everything and still would have left office with high approval ratings and Al Gore as President. In my book he turned out to be a great fool in the end. And I think our politics has paid a  price ever since. I wish I knew how to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

clinton was too smart for his own good.  nixon was too insecure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Straight up Fascism.

There is no longer a Republican Party. I've stated this before.

They are now the Fascist Republicans of America.

Fun fact: when Italy became a German puppet state during the last couple years of WWI, the country was renamed The Italian Social Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...