Limbaugh may have broken Ohio election laws, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 27-3-2008 @ 07:55 PM by jsobecky

Limbaugh may have broken Ohio election laws


groups.google.com
This month's primaries in Ohio and Texas resurrected Hillary Clinton
from the political graveyard for the umpteenth time this election
season.

Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh is taking credit for Clinton's
continued presence in the race after encouraging Republican voters to
switch parties before those two big states voted March 4, and he has
called on Pennsylvania GOPers to do the same before their state votes
April 22. Limbaugh's listeners are worried about an election fraud
investigation, which could result in criminal charges for voters in at
least one Ohio county.

MSNBC host Dan Abrams says the right-wing radio host's aim is "to
subvert democracy and inject dirty tricks into the Democratic
nomination process."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blog.wired.com
www.alternet.org
bluechristian.blogspot.com


reply posted on 27-3-2008 @ 10:56 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Sestias


I agree that the law is virtually unenforceable.
I also doubt that all of those people that switched did it because Rush told them to. I'm sure many people had come to the same conclusion on their own.
Heck, if that law were enforced, then everyone who votes for someone that they don't like, in order to get a point across, would be breaking the law. Look at the 22% of democrats that say that if their candidate(either Obama or Hillary) doesn't get the nomination, they will vote for McCain.



reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 12:20 AM by Sublime620
reply to post by jsobecky



You people are silly. Limbaugh is crazy, we've already known this.

Now he is encouraging people to break the law. It is a fair estimate, he is subverting democracy, but for what?

He hates McCain. Too bad Limbaugh, among other leaders today, can't put bipartisanship behind him and learn to vote based on principles.


reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 07:26 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by The Nighthawk



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
First of all, it's the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat" Party. Cut the crap.

Using the term "Democrat" party is a sign of contempt. That's exactly what I intended.

The rest of your post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Rush, and evades the issue being discussed. So I'll just ignore it.


reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 07:29 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by xmotex



To those who say Limbaugh is subverting democracy, I ask you: how so?

The election laws provide a vehicle to jump party lines to cast a vote in the primaries. People took advantage of that law, and Rush encouraged them.

So did I, in several threads here.

How is that breaking the law?


reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 07:42 AM by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to
post by xmotex



To those who say Limbaugh is subverting democracy, I ask you: how so?

...

How is that breaking the law?


Here's the law you quoted yourself. It seems pretty clear, for those that were challenged and signed affidavits falsely at least. For others that weren't challenged, I guess they'll get away with it.



Ohio's revised election code includes an election falsification clause (Revised Code 3513.20), which says that if a voter who changes parties is challenged by poll workers as to the sincerity of his change of heart and also signs an affidavit stating that he supports the principles of the party to which he's changing -- when in fact he doesn't support them -- then he would be committing election falsification. Election falsification is a felony that is punishable by six to twelve months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

blog.wired.com...



reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 09:48 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe



Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by jsobecky
To those who say Limbaugh is subverting democracy, I ask you: how so?

...

How is that breaking the law?


Here's the law you quoted yourself. It seems pretty clear, for those that were challenged and signed affidavits falsely at least. For others that weren't challenged, I guess they'll get away with it.

"It seems pretty clear"? To whom? You? But not to those who count.

How on earth are you ever going to prove someone's sincerity?


reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 10:26 AM by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by jsobecky



It's not clear to you that those who falsely signed affidavits broke the law you quoted? Interesting..
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^