BREAKING: Thad Cochran Campaign busted for illegal vote buying operation

[Antares]

I am not a leftist...I am a pissed off conservative...pissed at racist nonsense spewed by the Tea Party and its following. I asked the questions because I am simply not going to waste my time trying to prove racism to people who don't believe racism exists. I have posted numerous threads on the topic, proving the Teaper movement is a racist movement. I have pointed out numerous posts by teapers on this very forum that are racist...but your comrades ignored it. I have asked the same questions over and over and you teapers refuse to answer it. So if you guys won't give me the common courtesy of answering a few questions, why should I spend my time trying to prove something that you are going to dismiss whether veritable or not?

You're a ******* moron libturd.

The only people I know who are calling the TEA party racists are imbecile left-wingers like you.

You haven't proved shit nor pointed out shit.

Who do you think you're fooling?

TP IS JUST AN UPDATED BIRCHER PARTY

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."


These results are bolstered by a recent New York Times/CBS News surveyfinding that white Tea Party supporters were more likely to believe that "the Obama administration favors blacks over whites" and that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people."


http://www.newsweek.com/are-tea-partiers-racist-70695

LOL, you people are idiots.

We're White,we don't think we need to pay more in taxes, we think entitlements are too high therefore we are "racist".

You people are like a bunch of 12 year old's who think you are relevant because you can point your fingers and call names.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Exactly, bad PR. They made the wrong move by by speaking out. To me, even acknowledging these accusations could mean the Cochran campaign thinks there is some legitimacy to them. So far, all of the information has come from the Cochran campaign. So, are you willing to trust only one side of the issue?

I don't know if they made "the wrong move". It's not the move I would have made, but it remains to be seen who's "right".

You say that this makes you believe the accusations more - yet a few posts ago you were claiming that the fact they hadn't said anything made you believe the accusations more.

How do you wrap your head around that cognitive dissonance?

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself.

Why would you have "kept that to yourself"?

It explains the text messages.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself. This also furthers my suspicion because Fielder was convicted of home repair fraud in 2006, yet still was hired by the Cochran Campaign. So, they failed to do background checks on those they hired to help. That's a red flag.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself. This also furthers my suspicion because Fielder was convicted of home repair fraud in 2006, yet still was hired by the Cochran Campaign. So, they failed to do background checks on those they hired to help. That's a red flag.

Campaigns don't have the time or resources to do background checks on people they pay with walking around money.

A background check costs almost as much as they were paying him in the first place.

I can't tell you how many criminals and lowlifes I've hired for GOTV campaigns.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know if they made "the wrong move". It's not the move I would have made, but it remains to be seen who's "right".

You say that this makes you believe the accusations more - yet a few posts ago you were claiming that the fact they hadn't said anything made you believe the accusations more.

How do you wrap your head around that cognitive dissonance?

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

I understand the PR. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about how you're responding to the PR.

You want this story to be true, so you accepted the campaign's silence as an admission of guilt. Then, when they denied it, you decided to take that denial as an admission of guilt, because you still wanted the story to be true.

You can make anything "imply" what you want to be true, if you try hard enough.

Actually, Doc, I don't care either way. In fact even I am getting more skeptical of this entire thing. I'm simply stating that remaining silent or speaking out can hide guilt. Both can be used as a guise. I don't take a denial seriously until it is backed up with credible evidence. Silence can imply unwillingness to acknowledge or refute these allegations, but at least then as you said, they wouldn't make themselves look bad in the public eye.

In fact, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 

[LoneLaugher]

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

I understand the PR. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about how you're responding to the PR.

You want this story to be true, so you accepted the campaign's silence as an admission of guilt. Then, when they denied it, you decided to take that denial as an admission of guilt, because you still wanted the story to be true.

You can make anything "imply" what you want to be true, if you try hard enough.

Actually, Doc, I don't care either way. In fact even I am getting more skeptical of this entire thing. I'm simply stating that remaining silent or speaking out can hide guilt. Both can be used as a guise. I don't take a denial seriously until it is backed up with credible evidence. Silence can imply unwillingness to acknowledge or refute these allegations, but at least then as you said, the wouldn't make themselves look bad in the public eye.

In fact, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

^^^this is why you do not have friends^^^

 

[daveman]

I'm a Republican, but if this is true, some Republicans need to go to jail.

I agree. I don't excuse tampering with the democratic process, no matter what the letter behind the name is.

Investigate fully and punish to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First, you said silence doesn't imply guilt. Okay fine. But then you went on to infer that speaking out would be a bad move, to me, speaking out can infer guilt. When a pointed accusation is met with silence, that can also infer guilt. To think that either one can imply innocence only is misguided. If you are silent for too long, people will start to wonder. If you speak out too much, again, people will start to wonder. People will get curious.

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself.

Why would you have "kept that to yourself"?

It explains the text messages.

How? The man they hired was an ex-con! That reflects poorly on them when they don't even do background checks on those they hire. Tell me, how does that explain the text messages?

Re-read the text messages from the initial story, in the context of knowing that this guy was hired to recruit GOTV shifts.

Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself. This also furthers my suspicion because Fielder was convicted of home repair fraud in 2006, yet still was hired by the Cochran Campaign. So, they failed to do background checks on those they hired to help. That's a red flag.

Campaigns don't have the time or resources to do background checks on people they pay with walking around money.

A background check costs almost as much as they were paying him in the first place.

I can't tell you how many criminals and lowlifes I've hired for GOTV campaigns.

So, you're telling me that campaigns lack the integrity to differentiate between those in good standing with the law, and those who aren't?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And what's even worse, Doc, is that the Cochran Campaign did acknowledge paying the man 300 bucks to perform "get out the vote" activities. If I had been them, I would have kept that to myself. This also furthers my suspicion because Fielder was convicted of home repair fraud in 2006, yet still was hired by the Cochran Campaign. So, they failed to do background checks on those they hired to help. That's a red flag.

Campaigns don't have the time or resources to do background checks on people they pay with walking around money.

A background check costs almost as much as they were paying him in the first place.

I can't tell you how many criminals and lowlifes I've hired for GOTV campaigns.

So, you're telling me that campaigns lack the integrity to differentiate between those in good standing with the law, and those who aren't?

"Integrity" has nothing to do with it.

Knocking on doors for GOTV is not "skilled labor". It pays shit, it's miserable work, and campaigns hire anyone and everyone who'll do it. Why should people with criminal records be denied $50 for a day's work?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why would you have "kept that to yourself"?

It explains the text messages.

How? The man they hired was an ex-con! That reflects poorly on them when they don't even do background checks on those they hire. Tell me, how does that explain the text messages?

Re-read the text messages from the initial story, in the context of knowing that this guy was hired to recruit GOTV shifts.

Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

It does make sense that they needed to hire people for GOTV shifts. I get that. What I'm saying is that admitting to paying this man to do anything doesn't look good, when you are being accused of paying someone to buy votes. Such concessions shouldn't be made until the all of the evidence is out there for all to see.

And, I think Charles Johnson and that "reverend' should be sued into the Stone Age if he is indeed perpetrating a lie (and I am starting to flip on this issue). Still, there is evidence that the Cochran campaign had Democrats voting for him in the primary. That is illegal, and the democratic votes are illegitimate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How? The man they hired was an ex-con! That reflects poorly on them when they don't even do background checks on those they hire. Tell me, how does that explain the text messages?

Re-read the text messages from the initial story, in the context of knowing that this guy was hired to recruit GOTV shifts.

Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

It does make sense that they needed to hire people for GOTV shifts. I get that. What I'm saying is that admitting to paying this man to do anything doesn't look good, when you are being accused of paying someone to buy votes. Such concessions shouldn't be made until the all of the evidence is out there for all to see.

And, I think Charles Johnson and that "reverend' should be sued into the Stone Age if he is indeed perpetrating a lie (and I am starting to flip on this issue). Still, there is evidence that the Cochran campaign had Democrats voting for him in the primary. That is illegal, and the democratic votes are illegitimate.

Mississippi voters do not register by party. Officially, there are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Mississippi.

It's not against the law for people who normally vote Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, unless they already voted in the Democratic primary.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How? The man they hired was an ex-con! That reflects poorly on them when they don't even do background checks on those they hire. Tell me, how does that explain the text messages?

Re-read the text messages from the initial story, in the context of knowing that this guy was hired to recruit GOTV shifts.

Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

It does make sense that they needed to hire people for GOTV shifts. I get that. What I'm saying is that admitting to paying this man to do anything doesn't look good, when you are being accused of paying someone to buy votes. Such concessions shouldn't be made until the all of the evidence is out there for all to see.

And, I think Charles Johnson and that "reverend' should be sued into the Stone Age if he is indeed perpetrating a lie (and I am starting to flip on this issue). Still, there is evidence that the Cochran campaign had Democrats voting for him in the primary. That is illegal, and the democratic votes are illegitimate.

No they aren't. It was an open primary. Why don't you know that? It is simply amazing that you don't know that.

You are starting to flip? Surely you jest! I'll tell you....the only thing stopping you from making a bigger ass of yourself is the fact that the issue only has two sides.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Campaigns don't have the time or resources to do background checks on people they pay with walking around money.

A background check costs almost as much as they were paying him in the first place.

I can't tell you how many criminals and lowlifes I've hired for GOTV campaigns.

So, you're telling me that campaigns lack the integrity to differentiate between those in good standing with the law, and those who aren't?

"Integrity" has nothing to do with it.

Knocking on doors for GOTV is not "skilled labor". It pays shit, it's miserable work, and campaigns hire anyone and everyone who'll do it. Why should people with criminal records be denied $50 for a day's work?

Because they're criminals? Not rocket science. I'm not saying not to pay them, I'm saying that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Hiring criminals for your GOTV activities opens up any unsuspecting citizen to danger. In my view, the candidate needs to have enough money on hand to perform these background checks. What the Cochran campaign did was dangerous!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, you're telling me that campaigns lack the integrity to differentiate between those in good standing with the law, and those who aren't?

"Integrity" has nothing to do with it.

Knocking on doors for GOTV is not "skilled labor". It pays shit, it's miserable work, and campaigns hire anyone and everyone who'll do it. Why should people with criminal records be denied $50 for a day's work?

Because their criminals? Not rocket science. I'm not saying not to pay them, I'm saying that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Hiring criminals for your GOTV activities opens up any unsuspecting citizen to danger. In my view, the candidate needs to have enough money on hand to perform these background checks. What the Cochran campaign did was dangerous!

Well, you're welcome to that opinion, I guess.

I tend towards thinking that people with a history should have the opportunity to redeem themselves, and that "criminals" are just people too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Re-read the text messages from the initial story, in the context of knowing that this guy was hired to recruit GOTV shifts.

Makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

It does make sense that they needed to hire people for GOTV shifts. I get that. What I'm saying is that admitting to paying this man to do anything doesn't look good, when you are being accused of paying someone to buy votes. Such concessions shouldn't be made until the all of the evidence is out there for all to see.

And, I think Charles Johnson and that "reverend' should be sued into the Stone Age if he is indeed perpetrating a lie (and I am starting to flip on this issue). Still, there is evidence that the Cochran campaign had Democrats voting for him in the primary. That is illegal, and the democratic votes are illegitimate.

Mississippi voters do not register by party. Officially, there are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Mississippi.

It's not against the law for people who normally vote Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, unless they already voted in the Democratic primary.

What I'm thinking here is that Democrats chose to swing the election in favor of the establishment candidate, with no intent to support him in the general election.

MS Code § 23-15-575 (2013) No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

§ 23-15-575 - Participation in primary election :: 2013 Mississippi Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

 

[LoneLaugher]

So, you're telling me that campaigns lack the integrity to differentiate between those in good standing with the law, and those who aren't?

"Integrity" has nothing to do with it.

Knocking on doors for GOTV is not "skilled labor". It pays shit, it's miserable work, and campaigns hire anyone and everyone who'll do it. Why should people with criminal records be denied $50 for a day's work?

Because their criminals? Not rocket science. I'm not saying not to pay them, I'm saying that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Hiring criminals for your GOTV activities opens up any unsuspecting citizen to danger. In my view, the candidate needs to have enough money on hand to perform these background checks. What the Cochran campaign did was dangerous!

Get this joker a new shovel! And a box of Twinkies. He's gonna need the energy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It does make sense that they needed to hire people for GOTV shifts. I get that. What I'm saying is that admitting to paying this man to do anything doesn't look good, when you are being accused of paying someone to buy votes. Such concessions shouldn't be made until the all of the evidence is out there for all to see.

And, I think Charles Johnson and that "reverend' should be sued into the Stone Age if he is indeed perpetrating a lie (and I am starting to flip on this issue). Still, there is evidence that the Cochran campaign had Democrats voting for him in the primary. That is illegal, and the democratic votes are illegitimate.

Mississippi voters do not register by party. Officially, there are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Mississippi.

It's not against the law for people who normally vote Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, unless they already voted in the Democratic primary.

What I'm thinking here is that Democrats chose to swing the election in favor of the establishment candidate, with no intent to support him in the general election.

MS Code § 23-15-575 (2013) No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

§ 23-15-575 - Participation in primary election :: 2013 Mississippi Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

That law has been ignored since the 70s, due to it's clear unconstitutionality and complete inability to be enforced.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Integrity" has nothing to do with it.

Knocking on doors for GOTV is not "skilled labor". It pays shit, it's miserable work, and campaigns hire anyone and everyone who'll do it. Why should people with criminal records be denied $50 for a day's work?

Because their criminals? Not rocket science. I'm not saying not to pay them, I'm saying that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Hiring criminals for your GOTV activities opens up any unsuspecting citizen to danger. In my view, the candidate needs to have enough money on hand to perform these background checks. What the Cochran campaign did was dangerous!

Well, you're welcome to that opinion, I guess.

I tend towards thinking that people with a history should have the opportunity to redeem themselves, and that "criminals" are just people too.

That kind of thinking can get someone hurt, Doc. I mean to say that the campaign shouldn't hire ex-convicts, other people can do what they want. But it is foolish to hire ex-cons to go knocking on doors. That's a risk even I wouldn't take.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Mississippi voters do not register by party. Officially, there are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" in Mississippi.

It's not against the law for people who normally vote Democrat to vote in the Republican primary, unless they already voted in the Democratic primary.

What I'm thinking here is that Democrats chose to swing the election in favor of the establishment candidate, with no intent to support him in the general election.

MS Code § 23-15-575 (2013) No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.

§ 23-15-575 - Participation in primary election :: 2013 Mississippi Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

That law has been ignored since the 70s, due to it's clear unconstitutionality and complete inability to be enforced.

"Clear unconstitutionality" according to whom?