(10-29-2026 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Ah, it's nice to have Tanq back again. Things were getting a little dull here.

I say we make AM a Mod so he can fulfill his promise.

(10-29-2026 05:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  This was a stupid move by the Peltola campaign. I have doubts as to whether it will make much difference at all-- partially because of the ranked choice system. The ballot is well labeled to avoid confusion, and if there is confusion it's probably mitigated because one would think that some of those folks would rank both Sullivan candidates.

Not sure we know enough to say this is illegal or not at this stage. But not worth the controversy (and silliness of the whole thing) for what might be a marginal gain at best.

I agree...it probably wasn't even necessary. And it might actually help Sullivan with the new label on the ballot that would not have been there before, or it might also inadvertently motivate someone apathetic who wasn't going to vote.

(10-30-2026 07:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 05:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  This was a stupid move by the Peltola campaign. I have doubts as to whether it will make much difference at all-- partially because of the ranked choice system. The ballot is well labeled to avoid confusion, and if there is confusion it's probably mitigated because one would think that some of those folks would rank both Sullivan candidates.

Not sure we know enough to say this is illegal or not at this stage. But not worth the controversy (and silliness of the whole thing) for what might be a marginal gain at best.

I agree...it probably wasn't even necessary. And it might actually help Sullivan with the new label on the ballot that would not have been there before, or it might also inadvertently motivate someone apathetic who wasn't going to vote.

and it shows the democrats cheating in real time.

(10-29-2026 09:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Huh. I thought democrats were supposed to be against disenfranchising voters.

Could you even imagine the reaction if the parties were reversed here. Tommie Bois and Gitanole (12) and the rest would have 10 threads open on this. One of the biggest problems with Democrats is hypocrisy. But that fits nicely with lying and cheating.

It is good to see Ofer is solidly with the defend the democrat side. Makes me confident of the eventual outcome.

I disagree. Gitindahole would have 120 threads open on it.

(10-30-2026 07:59 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Huh. I thought democrats were supposed to be against disenfranchising voters.

Could you even imagine the reaction if the parties were reversed here. Tommie Bois and Gitanole (12) and the rest would have 10 threads open on this. One of the biggest problems with Democrats is hypocrisy. But that fits nicely with lying and cheating.

It is good to see Ofer is solidly with the defend the democrat side. Makes me confident of the eventual outcome.

Perhaps read a tad more carefully. Pretty rank dirty politics if as true as reported.

Ive simply pointed out that it is rank dirty politics, and pointed out specific examples just as deceptive.

Oh, and I pointed out that the rhetorical comment about 'lying to the court' is perhaps a pretty big stretch factually.

Glad to know that is 'solidly defending'. Wait, I forgot, anything less than 'Its a crime, its unique, its unparalleled' *is* a defense to those fully baptized in Team Cult MAGA.

Trying to talk anyone on the other side from getting on a ballot to split the vote is absolute gutter politics. With the same name or not of an opponent. End of story.

I can point to 7 or 8 equally and deeply statements *from* the Paxton campaign equally deceiving. Some of which are repeated like Biblical verse by some around here as gospel truth.

The interesting thing is that either the repeaters of the phrases are either so fing stupid, or so fing lazy, or so fing enamored of those phrases that they either dont bother to look at the full statement, or simply refuse to do so to stick to the True Word of their body.

And when faced with an equally odious act of deception, act like a buch of snowflakes.

And to make the full circle, if a person who knew of the true intent of deception was asked in the courtroom of that, and stated otherwise -- then absolutely they should be charged with perjury.

*Right now* -- I have no idea who testified at the court, no idea what anyone who did testify at the court knew about this, no idea of the specific questions asked, and no idea what any unknown person answers to any unknown questions, having any unknown personal knowledge actually in their own words were at that or those hearings.

So no, the comment about that is highly premature.

But in true Spin Zone MAGA Cult fashion, you simply trot out some form of invective as soome retard level crutch for a comment. Good job there, champ. <slow clap>

Elias is a proven low life, and I don't care which party he supports. I would feel the same if it were reversed.

Quote:Wow, Democrat Campaign Chair Suzan DelBene (D-WA) TORCHED by CNBC hosts over Democrat Mary Peltola election rigging scandal in Alaska ?

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “You don't believe the report at all?”

“You don't believe, You genuinely don't believe it happened. Do you want to know if it happened? ... As a human, as a citizen, if you're watching this play out and you say to yourself, this is crazy?”

For 4+ minutes, DelBene insists she believes Peltola & her campaign had NOTHING to do with placing a fake Dan Sullivan on the ballot after bombshell NYTimes investigation, complete with text message evidence, sparking multiple federal & criminal investigations

DelBene goes on a whataboutism tangent: “Well, the campaign has been clear that they deny what happened … Republicans from the very beginning have been set up trying to rig the system”

️Joe Kernen: “Chairwoman, it's good you got that, you know, not a lot of DelBenes around so you probably have, Democrats won't be able to find anyone to run against”

(10-29-2026 05:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  This was a stupid move by the Peltola campaign. I have doubts as to whether it will make much difference at all-- partially because of the ranked choice system. The ballot is well labeled to avoid confusion, and if there is confusion it's probably mitigated because one would think that some of those folks would rank both Sullivan candidates.

Not sure we know enough to say this is illegal or not at this stage. But not worth the controversy (and silliness of the whole thing) for what might be a marginal gain at best.

You s/ post over here more often. You disagree w/ us here but you put thought into what you believe.

(10-30-2026 07:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Huh. I thought democrats were supposed to be against disenfranchising voters.

Surely you know what disenfranchisement means, right?

Hint: No bro, this ain't it...not even close.

You'd have to be one of those kids who has to wear a hockey helmet just to get through the day to think that purposefully conspiring to trick voters to vote for the wrong guy isn't disenfranchising.

What a retard.

(10-30-2026 09:27 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 07:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Huh. I thought democrats were supposed to be against disenfranchising voters.

Surely you know what disenfranchisement means, right?

Hint: No bro, this ain't it...not even close.

You'd have to be one of those kids who has to wear a hockey helmet just to get through the day to think that purposefully conspiring to trick voters to vote for the wrong guy isn't disenfranchising.

What a retard.

“Purposely conspiring to trick voters” == disenfranchising.

The Paxton campaign has purposefully acted as a group to take 6 words from forty to trick voters into not voting for Talarico.

I guess you should agree that Paxton and his campaign are disenfranchising voters given that rule of thumb……. The things we learn……

(10-30-2026 04:53 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 05:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  This was a stupid move by the Peltola campaign. I have doubts as to whether it will make much difference at all-- partially because of the ranked choice system. The ballot is well labeled to avoid confusion, and if there is confusion it's probably mitigated because one would think that some of those folks would rank both Sullivan candidates.

Not sure we know enough to say this is illegal or not at this stage. But not worth the controversy (and silliness of the whole thing) for what might be a marginal gain at best.

You s/ post over here more often. You disagree w/ us here but you put thought into what you believe.

He has before. I mean as much as I can't stand his politics, he's at least willing to have an honest debate. wmubroncopilot, you're okay in my book, sir.

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

(10-31-2026 09:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

I guess soliciting *anyone* to run in an election is in your view a Federal crime……. Interesting pov for sure……

And I hate to tell you, *even when* you solicit someone to run in race of *even the other party* —— any individual’s right to vote isnt inhibited from being exercised. Any individual is still able to vote for anyone whom they choose to. No one is stifling or inhibiting any basic act *to vote* in the basic form of the action.

Yes, the issue if wholly proven up, is *absolutely* an amazingly crappy form of dirty politics. And if an individual lied to a court on the issue, absolutely charge that person or persons with perjury.

However seeking to create confusion about whom to vote for is not a crime. Creating confusion to keep someone *from* voting at all imo absolutely is. Kind of key to word “oppress” in the statute you note above.

(10-31-2026 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 09:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

I guess soliciting *anyone* to run in an election is in your view a Federal crime……. Interesting pov for sure……

It is when the purpose is to deny rights of voters or commit fraud. Which is why the Peltola campaign lawyers are currently hiring lawyers of their own. Maybe go offer your pro bono work for them, since you are so sure about this.

(10-31-2026 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 09:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

I guess soliciting *anyone* to run in an election is in your view a Federal crime……. Interesting pov for sure……

And I hate to tell you, *even when* you solicit someone to run in race of *even the other party* —— any individual’s right to vote isnt inhibited from being exercised. Any individual is still able to vote for anyone whom they choose to. No one is stifling or inhibiting any basic act *to vote* in the basic form of the action.

Yes, the issue if wholly proven up, is *absolutely* an amazingly crappy form of dirty politics. And if an individual lied to a court on the issue, absolutely charge that person or persons with perjury.

However seeking to create confusion about whom to vote for is not a crime. Creating confusion to keep someone *from* voting at all imo absolutely is. Kind of key to word “oppress” in the statute you note above.

Intent.

(10-31-2026 10:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 09:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

I guess soliciting *anyone* to run in an election is in your view a Federal crime……. Interesting pov for sure……

And I hate to tell you, *even when* you solicit someone to run in race of *even the other party* —— any individual’s right to vote isnt inhibited from being exercised. Any individual is still able to vote for anyone whom they choose to. No one is stifling or inhibiting any basic act *to vote* in the basic form of the action.

Yes, the issue if wholly proven up, is *absolutely* an amazingly crappy form of dirty politics. And if an individual lied to a court on the issue, absolutely charge that person or persons with perjury.

However seeking to create confusion about whom to vote for is not a crime. Creating confusion to keep someone *from* voting at all imo absolutely is. Kind of key to word “oppress” in the statute you note above.

Intent.

it's that simple ... but but buTTT, muh lawfares...

(10-31-2026 10:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 09:43 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute https://share.google/VP3n6ezAZA809KgGV

I guess soliciting *anyone* to run in an election is in your view a Federal crime……. Interesting pov for sure……

And I hate to tell you, *even when* you solicit someone to run in race of *even the other party* —— any individual’s right to vote isnt inhibited from being exercised. Any individual is still able to vote for anyone whom they choose to. No one is stifling or inhibiting any basic act *to vote* in the basic form of the action.

Yes, the issue if wholly proven up, is *absolutely* an amazingly crappy form of dirty politics. And if an individual lied to a court on the issue, absolutely charge that person or persons with perjury.

However seeking to create confusion about whom to vote for is not a crime. Creating confusion to keep someone *from* voting at all imo absolutely is. Kind of key to word “oppress” in the statute you note above.

Intent.

Great, changes it to intentionally trying to confuse. Not a bit of difference.

Creating confusion about a candidate still isn’t oppressing a person from voting. Words matter. No matter how much you wish and want them to be the same.

I’ll ask you the same question on this point no one has answered here. The MAGAs here seemingly think that sowing confusion about a candidate is a crime.

Paxtons ads use 4 words of a Talarico statement to crest their explicit message about Talaricos stance on the issue, the full statement being crystal clear that it is wholly opposite from the full statement.

I guess now that you are jumping up and down that creating confusion about a candidate is a violation of conspiracy to oppress a right to vote, would you agree that under your framework that Paxton should be similarly charged?