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.

(10-29-2026 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I knew it...Turley

A liberal

I was curious, so I asked what Turley's political beliefs are thought to include.

Here's what I got:

Jonathan Turley is generally described as a civil libertarian and a legal independent or iconoclastic contrarian rather than fitting into a strict left-right political mold.
Key details regarding his political background and media analysis ratings include:

• Self-Description and Early Views: Turley has previously described himself as a liberal Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton, and he criticized policies from Republican administrations such as George W. Bush.

• Media Bias Ratings: Media watchdog groups like AllSides Media Bias classify his public commentary with a Lean Right rating due to his frequent critiques of Democrats, progressive policies, and media/academic censorship.

• Independent / Heterodox Stance: Analysts often note that his positions do not align neatly with either major party. He has sued both Democratic (Barack Obama) and Republican (Donald Trump) administrations over executive overreach, and he has testified as a witness for both parties in various congressional and impeachment proceedings.

• Core Focus: His public work primarily centers on civil liberties, executive power skepticism, and strict advocacy for First Amendment free speech rights.

(10-29-2026 07:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I knew it...Turley

A liberal

I was curious, so I asked what Turley's political beliefs are thought to include.

Here's what I got:

Jonathan Turley is generally described as a civil libertarian and a legal independent or iconoclastic contrarian rather than fitting into a strict left-right political mold.
Key details regarding his political background and media analysis ratings include:

• Self-Description and Early Views: Turley has previously described himself as a liberal Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton, and he criticized policies from Republican administrations such as George W. Bush.

• Media Bias Ratings: Media watchdog groups like AllSides Media Bias classify his public commentary with a Lean Right rating due to his frequent critiques of Democrats, progressive policies, and media/academic censorship.

• Independent / Heterodox Stance: Analysts often note that his positions do not align neatly with either major party. He has sued both Democratic (Barack Obama) and Republican (Donald Trump) administrations over executive overreach, and he has testified as a witness for both parties in various congressional and impeachment proceedings.

• Core Focus: His public work primarily centers on civil liberties, executive power skepticism, and strict advocacy for First Amendment free speech rights.

So, he is a Kennedy/Clinton Democrat like Trump, of which there is no longer a political party so they are NOW considered "Right Leaning"?

(10-29-2026 03:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(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...

It’s an instant runoff. The pure horror……. lolz. Is it the ‘instant’ idea or the ‘runoff’ idea that seemingly stuffs bees into your pants?

(10-29-2026 03:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(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...

I’m very sorry that you apparently do not care about the application of actual facts to an issue,

You’ve previously made that stance crystal clear in other subjects.

You are more than free to not care nor bother to care about actual facts, or care or not care that they may be determinative.

You do you.

(10-29-2026 03:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(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?

Not at all. I’d suggest read my comment a bit more carefully. If and when you show me a specific person making a specific statement that was false with a knowledge it was false —- go after them.

The reporting simply has unnamed persons with equally unknown knowledge supplying unknown answers to unknown questions,

In short, there is literally nothing for a reader to make any determination. Care to clear up any of the unknowns?

(10-29-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  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

Aww, poor stinkie is Maddy poo. Neat look.

The funny thing is within that comment you like to whine like a ***** about above, I’ve literally pointed out the flaw about 6 or 7 times, and asked you to point out what creates a solution within your demigod law for a large number of folks that fall into that.

Each and every time you’ve avoided that. Since you decided to raise that issue above in your typical mealy mouth way, care to point out that solution that’s been avoided?

Or are you just going to mutter whiny asides just like you do above?

My guess is you’ll continue in your usual butthurt chump mode like ^^.

Have a fine weekend, sfister

Quote:BREAKING: Alaska Gov. Dunleavy announces the fraud Dan J. Sullivan REFUSED TO GO UNDER OATH during an initial investigation, and even tried to to set his middle initial as "S" to MATCH Sen. Dan S. Sullivan (R-AK)

The investigation will also see if someone PAID for the Democrat plant operation, which can EASILY bring criminal implications

"He did not want to talk and do it under oath!"

"Quite frankly, the individual should not be on the ballot!"

Kick her off the ballot and prosecute them both.

This is so obviously FRAUD and ILLEGAL, and political operatives were heavily involved, including most likely Peltola's own people!

Democrats got the idea from season 5 of Fargo:

Huh. I thought democrats were supposed to be against disenfranchising voters.

(10-29-2026 08:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  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

Aww, poor stinkie is Maddy poo. Neat look.

The funny thing is within that comment you like to whine like a ***** about above, I’ve literally pointed out the flaw about 6 or 7 times, and asked you to point out what creates a solution within your demigod law for a large number of folks that fall into that.

Each and every time you’ve avoided that. Since you decided to raise that issue above in your typical mealy mouth way, care to point out that solution that’s been avoided?

Or are you just going to mutter whiny asides just like you do above?

My guess is you’ll continue in your usual butthurt chump mode like ^^.

Have a fine weekend, sfister

stink didn't put those words of smatter into your mouth ... ewe did it all by ewerself...

(10-29-2026 08:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

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

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

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

I’m very sorry that you apparently do not care about the application of actual facts to an issue,

You’ve previously made that stance crystal clear in other subjects.

You are more than free to not care nor bother to care about actual facts, or care or not care that they may be determinative.

You do you.

why choose otherwise...

you couldn't lay out the facts w/o getting torched...

I told you a few moons ago, I'm done with ewe ... I refuse the refuse of diving into the shallow end...

ewe no longer deserve my respect ... capiche?!!

(10-29-2026 09:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  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

Aww, poor stinkie is Maddy poo. Neat look.

The funny thing is within that comment you like to whine like a ***** about above, I’ve literally pointed out the flaw about 6 or 7 times, and asked you to point out what creates a solution within your demigod law for a large number of folks that fall into that.

Each and every time you’ve avoided that. Since you decided to raise that issue above in your typical mealy mouth way, care to point out that solution that’s been avoided?

Or are you just going to mutter whiny asides just like you do above?

My guess is you’ll continue in your usual butthurt chump mode like ^^.

Have a fine weekend, sfister

stink didn't put those words of smatter into your mouth ... ewe did it all by ewerself...

I stand by those words, champ. I’ve pointed out the flaws and the problems they create,

You….. you just flap lips and run away from addressing anything factual, and simply throw your typical rhetorical **** level hissy fit as you have just done.

Neat stuff, pardner. And again, you do you.

(10-29-2026 09:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 08:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

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

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

I’m very sorry that you apparently do not care about the application of actual facts to an issue,

You’ve previously made that stance crystal clear in other subjects.

You are more than free to not care nor bother to care about actual facts, or care or not care that they may be determinative.

You do you.

why choose otherwise...

you couldn't lay out the facts w/o getting torched...

I told you a few moons ago, I'm done with ewe ... I refuse the refuse of diving into the shallow end...

ewe no longer deserve my respect ... capiche?!!

Well…. You have fun in that half brain world of yammering rhetorical conclusions without regard to fact.

The funny thing is the bolded…. You are correct in a typical bassackward manner. I the current issue, there are no specific facts to jump to the conclusion that someone was lying to the Alaska Supreme Court. I would absolutely be torched for yammering that conclusion.

If you want to go postal over pointing out an empty rhetorical comment has zero basis in actual fact —- you go right ahead, capn.

And love your little girl comment at the end. I don’t give a rats ass what you think — about me or anything else. I just don’t have to pipe up on that issue as shrilly and whiningly as you seem to feel the overriding urge to perform.

Have a great night and weekend, champ.

Ah, it's nice to have Tanq back again. Things were getting a little dull here.

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

Sorry to hear you didnt “Hatch” successfully. (Pun comment on your trip, and in no way directed personally — just to be absolutely clear.

(10-29-2026 11:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

Sorry to hear you didnt “Hatch” successfully. (Pun comment on your trip, and in no way directed personally — just to be absolutely clear.

Ha, thanks. My timing was off a bit, unbeknownst to me. I discovered it before I committed to the full southern plunge to Hatch, so from Tucumcari and Albuquerque, I was able yesterday and today to continue straight westward on I-40, so I didn't lose any real ground, as far as what I hope to see and do on this journey, other than...

All that hurrying down from South Dakota has landed me maybe 3 off days in Holcomb AZ, until the predicted storm blows through. Which is cutting into my cushion of extra days before I have to show back up in Memphis.

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

idinit .. always the last word ...

(10-29-2026 05:00 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  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.

***** please.

How's Justice Merrick Garland fairing on SCOTUS these days?

Quote:For the first time, the lead consultant to Florida Senate Republicans has admitted to hiring a disgraced ex-senator and approving a dirty trick to recruit a third-party candidate to siphon votes from a South Florida Democrat.

The scheme succeeded. In 2020, Jose Javier Rodriguez, the Democrat targeted by the GOP and by Florida Power & Light, lost by 32 votes to Ileana Garcia, the founder of Latinas for Trump. A third-party candidate who didn’t campaign and who shared the same last name as Rodriguez drew over 6,000 votes.

Patrick Bainter, the Senate GOP’s chief consultant, told Miami’s chief public corruption prosecutor in a December deposition that he was the one who gave the green light to former state Sen. Frank Artiles to find third-party candidates to help defeat two Democrats.

“He said he thought that was something he could do and do well,” Bainter said. “Great. Go knock yourself out.” Bainter then had $100,000 transferred to a dark money non-profit Artiles controlled.

Florida GOP operative admits role in ‘ghost’ candidate scheme that defeated utility-targeted Dem

Both parties have been doing shenanigans like this for years.

(10-29-2026 07:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I knew it...Turley

A liberal

I was curious, so I asked what Turley's political beliefs are thought to include.

Here's what I got:

Jonathan Turley is generally described as a civil libertarian and a legal independent or iconoclastic contrarian rather than fitting into a strict left-right political mold.
Key details regarding his political background and media analysis ratings include:

• Self-Description and Early Views: Turley has previously described himself as a liberal Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton, and he criticized policies from Republican administrations such as George W. Bush.

• Media Bias Ratings: Media watchdog groups like AllSides Media Bias classify his public commentary with a Lean Right rating due to his frequent critiques of Democrats, progressive policies, and media/academic censorship.

• Independent / Heterodox Stance: Analysts often note that his positions do not align neatly with either major party. He has sued both Democratic (Barack Obama) and Republican (Donald Trump) administrations over executive overreach, and he has testified as a witness for both parties in various congressional and impeachment proceedings.

• Core Focus: His public work primarily centers on civil liberties, executive power skepticism, and strict advocacy for First Amendment free speech rights.

Regardless of what Turley says and does in his work life, he's been reduced to a paid media shill. For years he was the top legal mouthpiece for Keith Olbermann. When KO's show collapsed and his paycheck went away, he then magically became the paid legal propagandist for Fox.

(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.