Its getting hot fast. Now the state has opened a criminal investigation as well as the feds. Peltolas campaign lawyers were just in the Alaska courts a week or so ago testifying that the campaign had nothing to do with the fake Dan Sullivan. Its whgy Turley says they are going to have to lawyer up now, because the NYT investigation is damning.

(10-28-2026 11:10 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:07 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  Where's the OriginalBigApp at?

There's a new quote that needs to be framed.

Not sure, but I second your nomination.

Nomination by a third party has been received and is currently being reviewed.

FYSA, all future "Redwingtom" nominations will require extensive vetting for validity.

His admitted rampant use of AI to generate thoughts leads the Hall of Fame committee to the conclusion that most, if not all, of his posts are NOT his own, but rather a repost of AI-generated responses. Meaning: Some Ethics & Standards Committee members do not believe he is being authentic about the originality of his words, and NOT giving credit to the original source. We have ample evidence to support this theory, and it is being investigated.

Eligibility for future inductions may be revoked if found credible. Previous entries will stand, but may be noted for potential false attribution and stolen ownership.

(10-29-2026 10:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:10 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:07 AM)BirdHawkEagle Wrote:  Where's the OriginalBigApp at?

There's a new quote that needs to be framed.

Not sure, but I second your nomination.

Nomination by a third party has been received and is currently being reviewed.

FYSA, all future "Redwingtom" nominations will require extensive vetting for validity.

His admitted rampant use of AI to generate thoughts leads the Hall of Fame committee to the conclusion that most, if not all, of his posts are NOT his own, but rather a repost of AI-generated responses. Meaning: Some Ethics & Standards Committee members do not believe he is being authentic about the originality of his words, and NOT giving credit to the original source. We have ample evidence to support this theory, and it is being investigated.

Eligibility for future inductions may be revoked if found credible. Previous entries will stand, but may be noted for potential false attribution and stolen ownership.

Tom should have used AI back when he tried to tell us he was a healthcare expert but didnt know what an insurance deductible was.

(10-29-2026 09:24 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  It's called Fraud. The whole purpose was to confuse the electorate so the vote for the incumbent would be split between two people. They have the data to prove THAT was the purpose. This guy got convicted for a tweet telling people they could vote by text message with no proof anyone actually tried to. And he wasn't a member of the opposing campaign.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/soc...n-election
"Douglass Mackey, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly to 7 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to interfere with potential voters’ right to vote in the 2016 election for the Office of the President of the United States."

Tom doesn't care. Heck, the left doesn't care either. It's blatant, out-in-the-open (now) election manipulation.

(10-29-2026 01:17 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:24 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  It's called Fraud. The whole purpose was to confuse the electorate so the vote for the incumbent would be split between two people. They have the data to prove THAT was the purpose. This guy got convicted for a tweet telling people they could vote by text message with no proof anyone actually tried to. And he wasn't a member of the opposing campaign.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/soc...n-election
"Douglass Mackey, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Ann M. Donnelly to 7 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to interfere with potential voters’ right to vote in the 2016 election for the Office of the President of the United States."

Tom doesn't care. Heck, the left doesn't care either. It's blatant, out-in-the-open (now) election manipulation.

it all boils down to two choices ... if a dipshite, then embrace wallowing in dipshite-ism ... if one carries value of self, don't be a dipshite.,.

(10-28-2026 11:37 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Its only cheating when Republicans do it

When Democrats do it, they are saving Democracy

Ranked choice voting is a load of crap. "Hey, let's have several primaries all at once in the same race! Derp!" And the people who think this is better than a winner-take-all system are just as derpy. (That's right! I said it! Come at me, leftists! I dare y'all!)

Ranked choice is a perfectly fine option to many. Not to you.

That about sums it up without the generated animosity, eh?

I have zero problem with ranked voting. Seems pretty efficient way to do a race. Much like I don’t have an issue with jungle primaries. If a jurisdiction likes each enough to institute them —- that’s *their* preference. No matter how much some irate forum poster subjectively likes or dislikes them.

Arguing that one or another is better is about as effective as debating whether rigatoni is better than capellini.

Uh huh. Sure. It's okay for someone on the left to get a third-party candidate with nearly the exact name as your main political opponent on the right to run just so you can have said third-party candidate siphon votes away from said main political opponent on the right, but if it's the other way around, it's against the law. Because the left says so.

lolno

This is election fraud, plain and simple, folks. Don't let the left and Never Trumpers tell you otherwise.

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

So, lying to the Alaska supreme court is ok in your legal mind?

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Uh huh. Sure. It's okay for someone on the left to get a third-party candidate with nearly the exact name as your main political opponent on the right to run just so you can have said third-party candidate siphon votes away from said main political opponent on the right, but if it's the other way around, it's against the law. Because the left says so.

lolno

This is election fraud, plain and simple, folks. Don't let the left and Never Trumpers tell you otherwise.

It’s absolutely dirty politics, no matter which side engages in it.

No worse than a particular Texas candidate cherry picking 9 words from the other candidates” 40 or so word comment on a subject and wholly devoid of any context to make that other candidates position seem polar opposite from the full statement.

Same style of deception and fraud. I’ll be critical of both for the exact same dirty politics foundation.

I’ll leave it to you to indict only the party that you seem prone to hate nearly at a genetic response.

(10-29-2026 03:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

So, lying to the Alaska supreme court is ok in your legal mind?

What specific testimony is lying? And I mean specific, as to both exact quotes and by person, and in response to what question.

Not by simple rhetorical broad accusation as seems to be your propensity above.

Give the specifics. It may or may not be — and is highly dependent on the speaker, the question, the testimony, and the knowledge level of the speaker.

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

Well I guess. Especially if you can’t win otherwise because enough people would not vote for you. So trickery TRUMPS the leftist democracy.

getting hotter now....

(10-29-2026 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

So, lying to the Alaska supreme court is ok in your legal mind?

What specific testimony is lying? And I mean specific, as to both exact quotes and by person, and in response to what question.

Not by simple rhetorical broad accusation as seems to be your propensity above.

Give the specifics. It may or may not be — and is highly dependent on the speaker, the question, the testimony, and the knowledge level of the speaker.

so, you think its sometimes ok to lie to the court? it would depend?

(10-29-2026 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:37 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 11:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Its only cheating when Republicans do it

When Democrats do it, they are saving Democracy

Ranked choice voting is a load of crap. "Hey, let's have several primaries all at once in the same race! Derp!" And the people who think this is better than a winner-take-all system are just as derpy. (That's right! I said it! Come at me, leftists! I dare y'all!)

Ranked choice is a perfectly fine option to many. Not to you.

by design, ranked choice is a ginned system ... do you really want me to go there again ... yep, ewe showed up at just the 'right' time, chico...

(10-29-2026 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

So, lying to the Alaska supreme court is ok in your legal mind?

What specific testimony is lying? And I mean specific, as to both exact quotes and by person, and in response to what question.

Not by simple rhetorical broad accusation as seems to be your propensity above.

Give the specifics. It may or may not be — and is highly dependent on the speaker, the question, the testimony, and the knowledge level of the speaker.

and that 'dichotomy' is why most despise lawyers in the gin factory of twisted words...

(10-29-2026 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2026 10:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Dems seem to think blatant cheating is perfectly fine these days. Anything to gain power.

Asking another person to consider being a candidate is blatantly cheating now? Interesting….

Could be in some circumstances dirty politics. No doubt.

But far from blatantly cheating. Guess not from others points of view…..

She blatantly instructed people to seek out people who were named Dan Sullivan to get them to run for Senate because she couldn't win on her own otherwise. The New York Times (of all leftist rags) published the story. When even they are saying something's rotten in the Alaskan Senate race, that should give you pause for concern. But instead, the left and, unfortunately, folks like yourself dismiss it as "it's not against the law for two candidates in one race to have the same name." Y'all are right. It's not against the law. What is (or should be) against the law is blatantly getting your campaign to look for guys that happen to have your opponent's name and convince them to run so they can siphon off votes that would otherwise go to your opponent. That's manipulative and, frankly, tampering with an election. And by the way, the DOJ just issued new subpoenas regarding this whole fiasco. Not only that, but the governor of Alaska is looking into it as well. So if this really is much ado about nothing, as Shakespeare once wrote, Peltola's got nothing to worry about. But it's looking like there's a legit case.

just to pile the fockall on as sig line 8 rears and roars...

Quote:"The SAVE Act will put literally millions of valid voters into risk of disenfranchisement." - tanq-0'fer-rang

The case in front of the Supreme Court. Didn't have a transcript to see if the Democrat side made untrue statements. They did get a defense attorney from one of the "Conservative Judge's" relatives law firms so he would have to recuse himself.
https://thealaskastory.com/alaska-suprem...decoy-dan/
"Justice Dario Borghesan recused himself after Sullivan retained Anchorage attorney Jeff Robinson, whose law firm employs Borghesan’s sister-in-law. Although there has been no suggestion of wrongdoing by the justice, the hiring had the practical effect of forcing his recusal from one of the state’s most closely watched election cases.

The move raised eyebrows because Robinson is best known as a criminal defense attorney rather than an election law specialist. It raises the question of whether the hiring was a strategic maneuver by Democrats designed to remove a conservative member of the court from hearing the appeal.

During oral arguments, the justices repeatedly focused on the central legal question: Where, exactly, does Alaska law require that a candidate file “in good faith?”"
So, to the Alaska Supreme Court you can lie when applying to be a candidate for public office.

I don't know if it's illegal, but it's dirty & unethical. But Democrats have played dirty for generations. Republicans try to place nice & just lose.

(10-29-2026 04:14 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  So, to the Alaska Supreme Court you can lie when applying to be a candidate for public office.

It's a requirement