Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Seems like it wouldn't be treason but sedition or seditious libel. Treason is solely to do with war against the US. I think there could be a case for sedition. Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. Careful, Halifax. All the usual lefty suspects are now gonna come out and call you names and shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 There is no two-party system. Independent, Constitution, Libertarian, Worker's World, Natural Law, Green, etc...they're all free to run--and "spoil" elections. The two major parties have a lock on the entire process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 There is no two-party system. Independent, Constitution, Libertarian, Worker's World, Natural Law, Green, etc...they're all free to run--and "spoil" elections. The two major parties have a lock on the entire process. Can you imagine regularly having two ideologically aligned parties splitting the vote every election cycle and throwing the victory to a candidate that only a small minority of voters want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think encouraging the republican membership to circumvent the democratic electoral process to be "subversion of the constitution" and the "incitement of discontent to lawful authority". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think encouraging the republican membership to circumvent the democratic electoral process to be "subversion of the constitution" and the "incitement of discontent to lawful authority". You realize that someone on this very site attempted to do the same to John mcCain? What size audience is required before a trial is to be scheduled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Can you imagine ... throwing the victory to a candidate that only a small minority of voters want? This trimmed version is essentially what we have today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I would hope that it would be arguable based on the end effect. People have admitted to following his advice in Texas. It's impossible to prove but he should be harshly criticized for the notion. IIRC we had a somewhat similar scandal in our last civic election. An unknown that just happened to have the same name as one of the favoured candidates showed up on the ballot for mayor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 We've always had it. Even Lincoln's victory was the product of a split ticket on the Democratic side. Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" is directly responsible for that idiot Woodrow Wilson, and we can thank Ross Perot for Bill Clinton. I'm not sure any changes in the current process would be constitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I would hope that it would be arguable based on the end effect. People have admitted to following his advice in Texas. It's impossible to prove but he should be harshly criticized for the notion. I agree. I'm thinking the DNC should sue his fat ass. But these remedies are a far cry from convening a trial for treason or sedition. Gimme a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 We've always had it. Even Lincoln's victory was the product of a split ticket on the Democratic side. Teddy Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" is directly responsible for that idiot Woodrow Wilson, and we can thank Ross Perot for Bill Clinton. I'm not sure any changes in the current process would be constitutional. I like the idea of a combined primary and you get to pick your top two candidates. The top two vote-getters combined run for president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Lara Berg was investigated for Sedition in 2005 for writing a letter to the editor. http://www.alibi.com/index.php?story=14092 Sedition is obviously in direct conflict with freedom of speech since you should be allowed to criticize the government. I guess the line is drawn when you encourage others to forcibly overthrowing the government. Couldn't the subversive removal of a favoured candidate be viewed as trying to overthrow the government? I'm just musing. I know it's all talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 I'm just musing. I know it's all talk. STFU, Libturd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Kidd Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Can you imagine regularly having two ideologically aligned parties splitting the vote every election cycle and throwing the victory to a candidate that only a small minority of voters want? There are other electoral systems that prevent this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 They're called run-off elections, and they aren't part of the US Constitution. "Other countries" do a lot of things--most which I'm glad we don't emulate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Kidd Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 There are many more types than that, and many of them don't split the vote in the way you describe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.