BREAKING: Thad Cochran Campaign busted for illegal vote buying operation

[TemplarKormac]

Either have enough money to perform background checks on your staffers and volunteers, or don't declare for candidacy until you do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

§ 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?

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Either have enough money to perform background checks on your staffers and volunteers, or don't declare for candidacy until you do.

As I said before, you're welcome to that opinion, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

I'm fairly certain that campaigns all over the country will continue to pay criminals and lowlifes for GOTV operations without giving them all background checks.

You realize that campaigns often hire hundreds of people for GOTV?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

You think ex-cons can't be trusted not to harm someone when hired to do a job? We have ex-cons here at USMB. You wouldn't hire one of the to knock on doors?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Either have enough money to perform background checks on your staffers and volunteers, or don't declare for candidacy until you do.

As I said before, you're welcome to that opinion, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

I'm fairly certain that campaigns all over the country will continue to pay criminals and lowlifes for GOTV operations without giving them all background checks.

You realize that campaigns often hire hundreds of people for GOTV?

Yes, and I see that as a potentially hazardous thing to do. Not every criminal is out there to 'redeem himself.' One is all it takes to exploit the lax hiring practices of political campaigns to hurt someone. While there are some that are out there worthy of giving a second chance, the risk is still too great to take. Why can't you see that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Clear unconstitutionality" according to whom?

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

Most states do have closed primaries, but states get to make that decision themselves.

But I think it's ridiculous to expect that Democrats should be forced to vote for Democrats, etc. The idea that you should have to change your registration to vote for the other guy causes major problems: One, it removes the anonymity of voting. If people are forced to vote for their party, then no one's vote is private any more. Second, it removes the ability to change your mind the day of the election, or be "on the fence".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Either have enough money to perform background checks on your staffers and volunteers, or don't declare for candidacy until you do.

As I said before, you're welcome to that opinion, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

I'm fairly certain that campaigns all over the country will continue to pay criminals and lowlifes for GOTV operations without giving them all background checks.

You realize that campaigns often hire hundreds of people for GOTV?

Yes, and I see that as a potentially hazardous thing to do. Not every criminal is out there to 'redeem himself.' One is all it takes to exploit the lax hiring practices of political campaigns to hurt someone. While there are some that are out there worthy of giving a second chance, the risk is still too great to take. Why can't you see that?

What exactly are you afraid of happening?

What "risk" are you talking about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I said before, you're welcome to that opinion, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

I'm fairly certain that campaigns all over the country will continue to pay criminals and lowlifes for GOTV operations without giving them all background checks.

You realize that campaigns often hire hundreds of people for GOTV?

Yes, and I see that as a potentially hazardous thing to do. Not every criminal is out there to 'redeem himself.' One is all it takes to exploit the lax hiring practices of political campaigns to hurt someone. While there are some that are out there worthy of giving a second chance, the risk is still too great to take. Why can't you see that?

What exactly are you afraid of happening?

What "risk" are you talking about?

Assault, burglary, the potential for a criminal to revert to or commit the actions that got him/her put in jail the first time. I would not be doing that to my constituency.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, and I see that as a potentially hazardous thing to do. Not every criminal is out there to 'redeem himself.' One is all it takes to exploit the lax hiring practices of political campaigns to hurt someone. While there are some that are out there worthy of giving a second chance, the risk is still too great to take. Why can't you see that?

What exactly are you afraid of happening?

What "risk" are you talking about?

Assault, burglary, the potential for a criminal to revert to or commit the actions that got him/her put in jail the first time. I would not be doing that to my constituency.

How does giving them jobs increase the risk that criminals will return to their previous ways?

I think that unemployed ex-cons are a much bigger problem than employed ex-cons.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

Most states do have closed primaries, but states get to make that decision themselves.

But I think it's ridiculous to expect that Democrats should be forced to vote for Democrats, etc. The idea that you should have to change your registration to vote for the other guy causes major problems: One, it removes the anonymity of voting. If people are forced to vote for their party, then no one's vote is private any more. Second, it removes the ability to change your mind the day of the election, or be "on the fence".

So, if a Democrat votes in a Republican primary, essentially you are disenfranchising the Republican voters. There is much to be said for the need for there to be pure elections. Hey, one can vote for whomever they wish in the general election, but to go and vote for someone in the opposing parties primary is wrong. You are giving an unfair advantage to one candidate or another. That is very unacceptable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What exactly are you afraid of happening?

What "risk" are you talking about?

Assault, burglary, the potential for a criminal to revert to or commit the actions that got him/her put in jail the first time. I would not be doing that to my constituency.

How does giving them jobs increase the risk that criminals will return to their previous ways?

I think that unemployed ex-cons are a much bigger problem than employed ex-cons.

If you are sending these people to knock on doors, what do you think might happen? The risk is too large. You have no way of knowing if that ex-con has turned over a new leaf or not. If he hasn't, you could be opening up a random citizen to possible harm. Again, the risk is too large. Would you knowingly let an ex-con onto your property? Same principle.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

Most states do have closed primaries, but states get to make that decision themselves.

But I think it's ridiculous to expect that Democrats should be forced to vote for Democrats, etc. The idea that you should have to change your registration to vote for the other guy causes major problems: One, it removes the anonymity of voting. If people are forced to vote for their party, then no one's vote is private any more. Second, it removes the ability to change your mind the day of the election, or be "on the fence".

So, if a Democrat votes in a Republican primary, essentially you are disenfranchising the Republican voters. There is much to be said for the need for there to be pure elections. Hey, one can vote for whomever they wish in the general election, but to go and vote for someone in the opposing parties primary is wrong. You are giving an unfair advantage to one candidate or another. That is very unacceptable.

I'm not a supporter of open primaries.

But according to the Constitution, states have the ability to determine how their elections are held. Take it up with the Mississippi State Legislature.

 

[LoneLaugher]

TK needs to have a chat with Rand. He's not on the same page with the supposed leader of his supposed party.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Assault, burglary, the potential for a criminal to revert to or commit the actions that got him/her put in jail the first time. I would not be doing that to my constituency.

How does giving them jobs increase the risk that criminals will return to their previous ways?

I think that unemployed ex-cons are a much bigger problem than employed ex-cons.

If you are sending these people to knock on doors, what do you think might happen? The risk is too large. You have no way of knowing if that ex-con has turned over a new leaf or not. If he hasn't, you could be opening up a random citizen to possible harm. Again, the risk is too large. Would you knowingly let an ex-con onto your property? Same principle.

The "risk" isn't actually that large, seeing as how it's been going on for decades now and there's never been an example of someone committing a crime while canvassing.

I gotta say, you're looking at this from a weird perspective.

 

[Darkwind]

"Clear unconstitutionality" according to whom?

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

I hope you are talking primary races only.

I would oppose any restriction that would allow Me to vote for a Democrat who had better values than the Republican in the race, simply because I was once registered GOP.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How does giving them jobs increase the risk that criminals will return to their previous ways?

I think that unemployed ex-cons are a much bigger problem than employed ex-cons.

If you are sending these people to knock on doors, what do you think might happen? The risk is too large. You have no way of knowing if that ex-con has turned over a new leaf or not. If he hasn't, you could be opening up a random citizen to possible harm. Again, the risk is too large. Would you knowingly let an ex-con onto your property? Same principle.

The "risk" isn't actually that large, seeing as how it's been going on for decades now and there's never been an example of someone committing a crime while canvassing.

I gotta say, you're looking at this from a weird perspective.

You would be surprised to see how many employers have the same perspective.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How does giving them jobs increase the risk that criminals will return to their previous ways?

I think that unemployed ex-cons are a much bigger problem than employed ex-cons.

If you are sending these people to knock on doors, what do you think might happen? The risk is too large. You have no way of knowing if that ex-con has turned over a new leaf or not. If he hasn't, you could be opening up a random citizen to possible harm. Again, the risk is too large. Would you knowingly let an ex-con onto your property? Same principle.

The "risk" isn't actually that large, seeing as how it's been going on for decades now and there's never been an example of someone committing a crime while canvassing.

I gotta say, you're looking at this from a weird perspective.

Kaleidoscopic, one might say.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you are sending these people to knock on doors, what do you think might happen? The risk is too large. You have no way of knowing if that ex-con has turned over a new leaf or not. If he hasn't, you could be opening up a random citizen to possible harm. Again, the risk is too large. Would you knowingly let an ex-con onto your property? Same principle.

The "risk" isn't actually that large, seeing as how it's been going on for decades now and there's never been an example of someone committing a crime while canvassing.

I gotta say, you're looking at this from a weird perspective.

You would be surprised to see how many employers have the same perspective.

I think you'll find that those employers are afraid of ex-con employees stealing from them, not whatever it is that you're worried about.

Not really anything to steal from a campaign.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's unconstitutional to create a legal framework forcing someone to vote one way or another.

It's also completely impossible to enforce.

But then again, it should be wrong for a Democrat to vote for a Republican in a primary, then vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is why my state has a primary for either party. To me, if you register as a Democrat, you vote Democrat unless you wish to change your affiliation before hand, likewise with Republicans. There should be an even playing field for both candidates, with no ability for one party to vote for the other. You are essentially cancelling out the votes of the other party when you are voting in THEIR PRIMARY.

You can create a registry for either party, and work from there. Nothing is impossible to enforce if enough effort and forethought is applied.

I hope you are talking primary races only.

I would oppose any restriction that would allow Me to vote for a Democrat who had better values than the Republican in the race, simply because I was once registered GOP.

I am. I would not extend that to general elections. But a party should be able to choose its own nominees without interference from the other party. The law should reflect that.