I think you had a chance of convincing a more-or-less republican voter until you threw in that high-falutin’ word. Seems like the kind of word that would be forced on 3rd graders during their photo session and CRT indoctrination.
6 Likes
Well, he is from New Jersey. So there’s that.
3 Likes
Well, to me, they ARE helping their cases, both this guy and Meadows, proving that voter fraud exists.
Except they’re the ones that are doing it.
Unfortunately, that gives their theory legs that, if they’re doing it, it’s easily doable by bad actors who are trying to steal elections.
From Republicans.
2 Likes
– I’m not shouting; just emphasizing the main point.
– which should be hammered home over and over again.
1 Like
Just gives credence to their making the case that fraud is rampant.
They conveniently leave out the detail that they’re the ones doing it.
3 Likes
Good thing you were able to get that out before he got his gun out and shot you. Be careful about this, son. They know they can get away with it.
2 Likes
Hawley interjected “sex act” at least a dozen times while questioning KBJ. His delivery of the phrase reminded me of Kevin Nealon’s “Mr. Subliminal” on SNL of yore.
6 Likes
I taught martial arts for years. It was gratifying to see students who thought they wanted to fight and who were quick to anger learn that courtesy can prevent conflict, and that fighting just leaves everyone tired and in pain. Best to take the high road where possible, and refuse to escalate things.
8 Likes
Arguing about the law misses the point about Republican hypocrisy. I mean this is more proof that to be a Republican you must have two sets of morals and standards, one for yourself and another for everyone else.
That is I am not going to debate if what this guy did, voting in New Hampshire to affect the first in the nation primary and then voting in New Jersey using HIS PARENTS ADDRESS is legal or not, it sure is hypocritical and embarrassing. Did he maintain his residence in New Hampshire? Did he take other actions to establish his residence at his parents house in New Jersey?
Or to use a legal term, there are facts NOT IN EVIDENCE that could affect the application of law. It is more likely a violation of a New Hampshire state law, where he running for congress as the state prohibits voting in two states in the same election, but as I am not licensed in New Hampshire I will leave to the lawyers who are.
If he were a Democrat it would hurt him and even though the current Republican Party has no shame, it should hurt him with “persuadables”. Think about it, for it to be legal he would have needed to officially leave New Hampshire, where he is running for Congress, and is in truth be only a fleeting resident who has no real ties to the state other than opportunistic, great campaign slogan.
3 Likes
Remember Hawley is the manly man.
1 Like
Probably more of a state issue I think. Nobody’s ever been prosecuted federally for it so far.
Arguably, he committed fraud by changing residency just to vote again but have fun proving he didn’t intend to permanently change residency/domicile.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double-voting.aspx
1 Like
It’s the projection, ALWAYS.
Rove’s Rule #1: ALWAYS accuse the other side of doing the bad, unethical and/or illegal shit you’re doing.
Zombie Fourth Estate Rule #1: ALWAYS buy whole-hog into Rove’s Rule #1 and create a bothsides/whataboutism narrative.
7 Likes
Seems likely, but also difficult to prove. At least he used his parents’ address to register rather than just some rando property he’d never visited, like Mark Meadows.
And I could easily make an argument that the federal statute doesn’t even prohibit voting in different states on the same day, since each state holds its own election for different candidates (including different presidential/VP electors).
1 Like
And I could easily make the argument that voting in two different states, even on different dates, in their party primaries for federal elections is still voting twice in the same election because you’re only supposed to get one shot at voting for one person to be your House Representative or Senator. Or should everyone just get 535 votes every election?
3 Likes
Shock? Surprise? Will someone please tell me how to react to this earth-shattering revelation?!!!
2 Likes
I’m not making a moral argument, just pointing out that the federal statute is poorly written if its goal was to prohibit people from voting in more than one state at a time.
4 Likes
Yes he may have thought he wasn’t breaking the law and the primaries were months apart and there were different candidates. BUT the ballots also included President - and thus he voted twice for President in the primary and I’m thinking that isn’t allowed
3 Likes
Oh, I know you’re not. I was just providing the obvious counterargument to the one you made, which is obviously the too-cute argument Mowers would make if he was indicted. The “election” should be understood as everything that leads up to the November vote and nobody should be allowed to cast votes, even in primaries, attempting to affects the election results for more than their fair share of representative democracy. One person, one vote becomes absolutely and utterly meaningless otherwise and we might as well give everyone in the country a vote for every Rep and every Senator position in the country every November if we’re going to allow turds like this Mowers to game the system.
3 Likes
New Hampshire §659:34-aI.
A person is guilty of a class B felony if, at any election, such person knowingly checks in at the checklist and casts a New Hampshire ballot on which one or more federal or statewide offices or statewide questions are listed if the person also casts a ballot in the same election year in any election held in any other state or territory of the United States where one or more federal or statewide offices or statewide questions are listed. For federal or statewide offices and statewide questions, neither the candidates nor the questions need be the same in both jurisdictions for a violation to occur.
9 Likes
As are most. Either drafted by lobbyists for intentional exploitation, or drafted sloppily by legislators and staffers more eager to satisfy their loudest or most generous constituents rather than to provide clear handling of all cases.
2 Likes