|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 08 2014 00:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 00:17 Simberto wrote:
It's a pretty shitty process of decisionmaking. Just because it works like that does not mean that is a justification for it to work like that. You're looking at this all wrong. First, military spending is exclusively the domain of the government. There is no private demand for military goods and services. In contrast, "science" spending (R&D, etc) occurs both privately and publicly. Public R&D spending is both direct and indirect (ie grants for particular research would be "direct" and tax incentives for R&D would be indirect). In other words, you can't just look at the federal budget and make rote conclusions regarding how much is being invested into science versus the military at a national level. Second, there is a significant overlap between military spending and scientific spending. Countless technologies were first developed for military purposes before they were converted to civilian uses. Hell, war has been the single greatest driver of innovation in the medical field. You can look at each major conflict in which the US has been involved over the past hundred years and pick out a key development in our understanding of the human body and treatment of various conditions. As just the most recent example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped revolutionize our understanding of traumatic brain injuries.
The thing is, the medical-military overlap is a lot less than it was in the past.
While military-related things have enhanced our understanding of (or at least drawn attention to) things like infection, surgery, PTSD, etc. these are issues that have been mostly solved, or affect a relatively small number of people outside the armed forces. While it's indisputable we've learned a lot about medicine from wars n' stuff, we've pretty much milked that cow for all it's worth. Bioterrorism and public health initiatives / rapid vaccine development is a potential avenue for military-medical overlap, but I don't see much past that.
Most people these days don't worry about losing a leg in an accident, they worry about their blood pressure, getting cancer, Alzheimer's or other stuff like that. Besides, no one knows exactly how much of the military budget goes to R&D, or more specifically medical/ health related R&D.
The graphic may be wrong, but it does convey the truth that government spending is not allocated in a way that matches the public need. While a lot of great stuff is done in the private sector, funding and knowledge is extremely fragmented-- our pharmaceutical industry is proof of this. The government putting weight behind some of these health issues could accelerate progress tremendously.
|
On July 08 2014 00:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. If you look at the the portion of the budget that is discretionary and not mandatory it's actually a little more than 50%. If we're discussing the question "is the USA misspending money?" it doesn't make much sense to include the money that they can not redistribute anyway. They should make that clear in their info graphic though, but it's not "bullshit".
It's bullshit. We're going to compare healthcare spending to military spending, but since healthcare is 'mandatory' we're going to ignore that spending?
|
On July 08 2014 00:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 00:17 Simberto wrote:
It's a pretty shitty process of decisionmaking. Just because it works like that does not mean that is a justification for it to work like that. You're looking at this all wrong. First, military spending is exclusively the domain of the government. There is no private demand for military goods and services. In contrast, "science" spending (R&D, etc) occurs both privately and publicly. Public R&D spending is both direct and indirect (ie grants for particular research would be "direct" and tax incentives for R&D would be indirect). In other words, you can't just look at the federal budget and make rote conclusions regarding how much is being invested into science versus the military at a national level. Second, there is a significant overlap between military spending and scientific spending. Countless technologies were first developed for military purposes before they were converted to civilian uses. Hell, war has been the single greatest driver of innovation in the medical field. You can look at each major conflict in which the US has been involved over the past hundred years and pick out a key development in our understanding of the human body and treatment of various conditions. As just the most recent example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped revolutionize our understanding of traumatic brain injuries.
This encapsulates the point I was trying to make pretty well. I wasn't just looking at the government although those are the numbers I used. I was looking at us as Americans. It's that our spending is irrational. The majority of us were fine with the idea of spending $100 billion (the most popular projections for the cost of the war in Iraq) on Iraq, but spend $500,000 on studying honey bees and it's pork...
Let's take a look at this year's Top Ten Porkbarrel projects in this year's agriculture appropriations bill:...
6. $500,000 for the Honey Bee Laboratory in Baton Rouge, LA;
Source
But why do honey bees matter right?
Nearly one-third of the world's crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, but over the last decade the black-and-yellow insects have been dying at unprecedented rates both in the United States and abroad.
Source
The threat of losing 1/3 of the worlds crops can barely get scientists $500,000 to study, yet we spend billions on the most wasteful projects imaginable (because terrorism).
I'm not trying to make a case that specific money should of been spent one place over another just that our financial priorities are all out of whack. The threat of terrorism has been blown way out of proportion and people don't approach it rationally. One of the main arguments for all this crap has been that we needed it to prevent another 9/11, that is total bullshit. We didn't need better intel, or a war in Iraq, we needed a president who knew what the hell they were doing.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
"Actually, the counterterrorist center of the CIA did a spectacular job, and that's what really comes down. You know, in the aftermath, the White House and others said, 'Well they didn't tell us enough.' No, they told them everything they needed to know to go on a full alert and the White House didn't do it."
Source
|
On July 08 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 00:29 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. If you look at the the portion of the budget that is discretionary and not mandatory it's actually a little more than 50%. If we're discussing the question "is the USA misspending money?" it doesn't make much sense to include the money that they can not redistribute anyway. They should make that clear in their info graphic though, but it's not "bullshit". It's bullshit. We're going to compare healthcare spending to military spending, but since healthcare is 'mandatory' we're going to ignore that spending?
No need to put mandatory in apostrophes.Social & Security and Medicare are required by law. They don't go through the budgeting process and don't need yearly congress approval. The more interesting part of the budget is the portion that the government can handle freely, and of that, 57% go into military spending.
|
On July 08 2014 03:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 08 2014 00:29 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. If you look at the the portion of the budget that is discretionary and not mandatory it's actually a little more than 50%. If we're discussing the question "is the USA misspending money?" it doesn't make much sense to include the money that they can not redistribute anyway. They should make that clear in their info graphic though, but it's not "bullshit". It's bullshit. We're going to compare healthcare spending to military spending, but since healthcare is 'mandatory' we're going to ignore that spending? No need to put mandatory in apostrophes.Social & Security and Medicare are required by law. They don't go through the budgeting process and don't need yearly congress approval. The more interesting part of the budget is the portion that the government can handle freely, and of that, 57% go into military spending.
I put mandatory in quotes because it is not relevant to the discussion. The graphic was comparing health related spending to military spending, while not showing health related spending.
|
On July 08 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 03:23 Nyxisto wrote:On July 08 2014 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 08 2014 00:29 Nyxisto wrote:On July 07 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
3) The Federal Government spends about ~20% of its budget on the military - not >50% as the graphic shows. It's outright wrong on that count.
Get real kid - it's obviously a pile of bullshit. If you look at the the portion of the budget that is discretionary and not mandatory it's actually a little more than 50%. If we're discussing the question "is the USA misspending money?" it doesn't make much sense to include the money that they can not redistribute anyway. They should make that clear in their info graphic though, but it's not "bullshit". It's bullshit. We're going to compare healthcare spending to military spending, but since healthcare is 'mandatory' we're going to ignore that spending? No need to put mandatory in apostrophes.Social & Security and Medicare are required by law. They don't go through the budgeting process and don't need yearly congress approval. The more interesting part of the budget is the portion that the government can handle freely, and of that, 57% go into military spending. I put mandatory in quotes because it is not relevant to the discussion. The graphic was comparing health related spending to military spending, while not showing health related spending.
Its a weird world where I agree with you but I agree that point is silly. It would be like trying to compare spending and cutting out the soldiers salaries and benefits because they have to be paid.
|
An appeals court sided with advocates for young immigrants who argued that Arizona's policy of denying them driver's licenses even though they had work permits under an Obama administration policy violated their equal protection rights.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the young immigrants were harmed by unequal treatment by the state and blocked Arizona's policy in its ruling Monday. The appeals court said the advocates also showed a likelihood that the immigrants would be harmed by the state's denial.
The Obama administration in June 2012 took administrative steps to shield thousands of immigrants from deportation under an executive action called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Applicants must have come to the United States before they turned 16, be younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, be in school or have graduated from high school or a GED program or have served in the military. They also were allowed to apply for a two-year renewable work permit.
Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order in August 2012 directing state agencies to deny driver's licenses and other public benefits to young immigrants who get work authorization under the program.
In May 2013, U.S. District Judge David Campbell rejected the argument by immigrant rights advocates who said Brewer's policy was unconstitutional because it's trumped by federal law.
Source
Legal marijuana sales are set to begin in Washington state as early as Tuesday after authorities began issuing retail licenses to stores.
The state's Liquor Control Board issued Monday the first 24 marijuana retailer licenses, the board said in a statement. The stores can now stock up on marijuana products and begin sales on Tuesday after the mandated 24-hour "quarantine" period.
Here's more from the panel:
"Businesses receiving their licenses today represent the first of 334 licenses allotted by the WSLCB for retail sales who have successfully completed the licensing process. Locations receiving licenses were selected by taking into account population, geographic dispersion and the individual applicant's readiness to be licensed."
The Associated Press reports that the board licensed 14 stores in western Washington and 10 in the eastern part of the state. It adds: "Spokane has three stores. Vancouver, Tacoma and Bellingham each have two. Seattle and the other cities on the list have one each."
What time the stores will open is likely to vary.
Source
|
On July 08 2014 09:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +An appeals court sided with advocates for young immigrants who argued that Arizona's policy of denying them driver's licenses even though they had work permits under an Obama administration policy violated their equal protection rights.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the young immigrants were harmed by unequal treatment by the state and blocked Arizona's policy in its ruling Monday. The appeals court said the advocates also showed a likelihood that the immigrants would be harmed by the state's denial.
The Obama administration in June 2012 took administrative steps to shield thousands of immigrants from deportation under an executive action called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Applicants must have come to the United States before they turned 16, be younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, be in school or have graduated from high school or a GED program or have served in the military. They also were allowed to apply for a two-year renewable work permit.
Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order in August 2012 directing state agencies to deny driver's licenses and other public benefits to young immigrants who get work authorization under the program.
In May 2013, U.S. District Judge David Campbell rejected the argument by immigrant rights advocates who said Brewer's policy was unconstitutional because it's trumped by federal law. SourceShow nested quote +Legal marijuana sales are set to begin in Washington state as early as Tuesday after authorities began issuing retail licenses to stores.
The state's Liquor Control Board issued Monday the first 24 marijuana retailer licenses, the board said in a statement. The stores can now stock up on marijuana products and begin sales on Tuesday after the mandated 24-hour "quarantine" period.
Here's more from the panel:
"Businesses receiving their licenses today represent the first of 334 licenses allotted by the WSLCB for retail sales who have successfully completed the licensing process. Locations receiving licenses were selected by taking into account population, geographic dispersion and the individual applicant's readiness to be licensed."
The Associated Press reports that the board licensed 14 stores in western Washington and 10 in the eastern part of the state. It adds: "Spokane has three stores. Vancouver, Tacoma and Bellingham each have two. Seattle and the other cities on the list have one each."
What time the stores will open is likely to vary. Source
To give you an idea how stupid this roll out has been, the few shops that know for sure they will be open will likely sell out in hours. This is despite having prices 2-3x street prices.
I just hope no one does anything especially stupid this year at Hempfest. It's going to be pretty insane that's for sure. Some idiot does something there and it will be all over the national news. It's already going to make national headlines as the largest hemp/marijuana festival in the country, last thing sensible drug laws need is some moron screwing it up for all of us.
|
State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election."
Source
|
On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source
I'm a little confused at the logic behind Democrats supposedly voting for the more moderate incumbent. Wouldn't they want the controversial Tea Party guy to win so the Democratic candidate would be a significantly different and appealing candidate to moderates/ independents?
|
On July 08 2014 12:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source I'm a little confused at the logic behind Democrats supposedly voting for the more moderate incumbent. Wouldn't they want the controversial Tea Party guy to win so the Democratic candidate would be a significantly different and appealing candidate to moderates/ independents?
In Mississippi it wouldn't even matter if all the moderates and independents voted for the Democratic candidate, they would still lose.
|
These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. See Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1291 (N.D. Okla. 2014) (“Marriage is incentivized for naturally procreative couples to precisely the same extent regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included.”). The
Court finds no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages.
KY ruling on gay marriage
|
On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source
There's not even certainty that voting in both primaries invalidates your vote. Last I heard, you could cast a primary ballot only if you intended to vote for that candidate in the general election, and that's only at the time of casting your ballot. Of course, there's also a possibility that some of those people they are flagging didn't vote for Cochran.
|
On July 08 2014 14:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source There's not even certainty that voting in both primaries invalidates your vote. Last I heard, you could cast a primary ballot only if you intended to vote for that candidate in the general election, and that's only at the time of casting your ballot. Of course, there's also a possibility that some of those people they are flagging didn't vote for Cochran.
If you voted in the Democrat primary, you cannot vote in the Republican runoff, and vice versa. That's what at issue here, as far as I know.
Edit:
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/06/04/runoff-election-rules/9955429/
|
On July 08 2014 14:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source There's not even certainty that voting in both primaries invalidates your vote. Last I heard, you could cast a primary ballot only if you intended to vote for that candidate in the general election, and that's only at the time of casting your ballot. Of course, there's also a possibility that some of those people they are flagging didn't vote for Cochran. If you voted in the Democrat primary, you cannot vote in the Republican runoff, and vice versa. That's what at issue here, as far as I know.
Mississippi doesn't have explicitly closed primaries. It all hinges around "voter intent," AFAIK. He'll have to overcome 2 distinct blocks: that these "fraudulent" votes can actually trigger a new election and that the votes are actually fraudulent under Mississippi primary laws.
|
On July 08 2014 14:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 14:22 Introvert wrote:On July 08 2014 14:09 aksfjh wrote:On July 08 2014 10:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:State Sen. Chris McDaniel's (R) lawyer said McDaniel's campaign and supporters have found "thousands" of examples of ineligible voters who cast their vote for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the runoff election for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
"I know there are several thousand that are absolute, ineligible voters," McDaniel attorney Mitch Tyner (pictured) said at a press conference on Monday. "And every one of those — every one of those is going to dilute your vote, it's going to dilute your vote."
Tyner's comments come as McDaniel supporters pore over poll books in counties that went for Cochran, who McDaniel challenged, in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Cochran ended up winning the election and McDaniel and his supporters have since accused the incumbent senator of causing voter fraud.
One reporter at the press conference asked Tyner if he could specify what the McDaniel campaign and McDaniel's attorney found by going through the absentee ballots on Monday. Tyner declined but said he would have more on that later in the week.
"One of the things that we know is very ripe for fraud in the state of Mississippi is absentee ballots," Tyner said.
Cochran won by about 7,000 votes in the runoff. Tyner said he would be surprised if they couldn't find enough votes to eliminate the gap.
"We don't have to have 6,700 [to move forward with a legal challenge], however, I would be surprised if we don't find 6,700," Tyner said. "If there are that many ineligible voters then it's already an automatically a new election." Source There's not even certainty that voting in both primaries invalidates your vote. Last I heard, you could cast a primary ballot only if you intended to vote for that candidate in the general election, and that's only at the time of casting your ballot. Of course, there's also a possibility that some of those people they are flagging didn't vote for Cochran. If you voted in the Democrat primary, you cannot vote in the Republican runoff, and vice versa. That's what at issue here, as far as I know. Mississippi doesn't have explicitly closed primaries. It all hinges around "voter intent," AFAIK. He'll have to overcome 2 distinct blocks: that these "fraudulent" votes can actually trigger a new election and that the votes are actually fraudulent under Mississippi primary laws.
That was just one rule- there is a runoff rule, as I just posted above.
The intent law is almost impossible to enforce.
|
Almost impossible?
I was under that impression it was literally impossible:
since ballots are secret and not connectable to an individual, it's impossible to prove that someone voted in such a fashion.
Especially since part of the point of secret ballots is so people can vote for what they believe is right; without having to face community scorn for their choice; therefore what they've said to the community cannot be held determinative of what they actually believe.
|
On July 08 2014 16:11 zlefin wrote:
Almost impossible?
I was under that impression it was literally impossible:
since ballots are secret and not connectable to an individual, it's impossible to prove that someone voted in such a fashion.
Especially since part of the point of secret ballots is so people can vote for what they believe is right; without having to face community scorn for their choice; therefore what they've said to the community cannot be held determinative of what they actually believe.
Impossible unless Democrats are walking around bragging that they pushed one GOP candidate over another that they perceived as too extreme.
|
Even then, I'm not so sure it would be enough. I already covered that case in one of my arguments.
Looking up the law on Corpus Delicti it seems like they might be able to; it still seems pretty sketchy when you can't confirm a specific instance of it though. And if anybody went to trial and says they lied to their friends, there's nothing that can disprove that.
I personally wouldn't consider it sufficient for conviction; given the known massive flaws with confessions, as well as the lack of specific evidence. But I'm someone who carefully avoids convicting innocent people, and thus would convict fewer guilty people (partly due to the reasonable doubt standard itself being stupidly nebulous).
|
Your election system is weird.
I know it's hard to do something like that, but you might wanna consider at some point to throw out 200 years of random shit bogging down your systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
