reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

What's not clear to me is that they falsely signed the documents.

A court would demand that you prove your accusation. The defendant would be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know if Limbaugh broke the law, but I disagree with his campaign. It is likely to backfire in more ways than his being indicted.

The democratic process is not to be trifled with for the entertainment of the masses or for ratings.

If a state does allow voters to cross party lines for the primaries (mine does not), then that is fine, but for Limbaugh to carry out a high profile campaign to unfairly influence an election is wrong.

It would be one thing if he had just mentioned that such was possible in some states, it would have one thing, but all the grandstanding and self-aggrandizement to me was offensive.

On the whole, I am not a fan of Limbaugh, anyway.

[edit on 2008/3/28 by GradyPhilpott]

I suppose there is no point in preaching ethics to people whose political philosophy consists of "win at all costs"...

Again, all the rightwingers in here would be crying foul and calling it "treason" if the Democrats were doing the exact same thing.

But since they're convinced that the right wing is all things good and just, and the Democrats are all closet Maoists, any despicable thing they do is OK because the "end justifies the means" - election fraud, fake terror alerts, or stealing an election outright.

The fanatical right can't abide democracy.
If people don't vote their way they must be "brainwashed", and thus it's OK to subvert the process by any means necessary...

Just a couple of things to think about.

1. Newspapers all over the country can and DO legally endorse a particular candidate. They also tell folks how to register ahead to time. In other words, the media is involved in the selection of candidates.


2. In Nevada, registration for the primaries was different for each party. You could vote for a Republican in the morning. And vote for a Democrat in the afternoon. Many people did, in a strategic way..Trying to get a weaker candidate to run against the one of their choice.


I just don't see a problem with what Rush was doing. He was advocating a legal process. If there IS a problem, it exists in Ohio..Not on Rush's show.

Nope, not wrong.

Primaries, and Caucuses have nothing to do with ethics.
They never have, maybe someday they will.

they are strategic chess games. Driven by the media, and by local partisan professionals. It's sad. But maybe it can be changed in the future.

As ironic as is sounds, maybe we can all change this someday...by voting.

I with I was wrong about this.
But the rules are not made up by the states themselves.
The rules are made by the parties at state level.

Even after all the voting is done, many delegates can change their vote at the state or national convention. Other states only pledge some of their delegates base on caucus, and primary results. Then there are the Superdelegates. What are they for?
Supers, are there to change the results, if they don't like the outcome.
In other words, they don't trust the voting public.

If there are loopholes, there is no reason why they can't be exploited, as long as they are legal. Therein lies the game.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Actually, he's asking people to cross party lines to vote for a candidate they have no intention of voting for in the general election and are doing so, so as to attain the nomination for a candidate they believe will be more easily defeated.

Whether it is legal or not, it is unscrupulous, in my judgement and makes a mockery of the primary system.

It's dirty politics.

*Golf Clap*

A perfect picture of dirty politics and raping of the system.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620

Basically, the state doesn't want people changing parties to vote for candidates simply because they think they are weaker. I thought the reason's behind a law like this would be obvious, but some people seem to think that it's just the way it's done.

Basically, the state can kiss my rosy red arse if they think they have the right to tell me how to vote!

Their responsibility is to register the candidates, supply the voting booths, and count the votes. Period. Not to tell me how "sincere" I should be.

Ethics. Oh brother!

Admit it you who think this is unscrupulous - if the NYT had printed an article about "The Dangers Of Allowing Cross Voting In Primaries" and outlined the steps, you wouldn't be whining so loudly. It's just because Rush Limbaugh did it; that's wha upsets you.

The 1ST Amendment gives me the right to stand on a soapbox and decry one candidate while simultaneously applauding another. This is a free speech right.

I didn't hear any of you crying about the ethics of flag burning, even though I think it's a morally despicable act.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, I'm serious. Are you?

This was the worst you've seen? You must be very young. This is nothing! Try using a dead person's name to register to vote, if you want bad.

Oh, just because bigger idiots have pulled worse things that makes this okay?

I didn't realize that.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The last I checked, you must have reached the age of adulthood in order to vote in the US. So the people would listen to Stern, and then vote the way they wanted to.

Yeah, if the media didn't influence the public then we wouldn't have a nation full of people who think Iraq was linked to terrorism.

What would happen is thousands of Stern fans would go and do what he said, and the right-wing would be outraged - as would I.

Originally posted by jsobecky
When you make laws with a "sincerity clause" in them, you deserve to have them broken.

YOU are the one at fault here, for defending an outrageous, indefensible law!

The law makes plenty of sense, it's just impossible to enforce. It would be difficult to prove intent.

The law itself is righteous, so I have no problem defending it. Tampering with elections is a terrible thing to do.