Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Ron Paul Supporters Commit Actual Voter Fraud, Crash Nevada’s Orthodox Jewish Caucus

Posted by Phoenix Woman on February 7, 2012

Uh, Paulies, besides its being an actual (as opposed to FOX-hallucinated) act of voter fraud, crashing a Nevada caucus set up for Orthodox Jewish voters is not how you make folks stop wondering if you or your leader are anti-semites:

In order to participate, caucus-goers “had to sign a legal declaration under penalty of perjury that they could not attend their daytime caucus because of ‘my religious beliefs’,” according to the Times.

But some media outlets, such as the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press, have reported that many Paul supporters signed the document, even though they weren’t actually prevented from voting earlier due to their religion.

Though Mitt Romney was declared the overall winner in Nevada, Paul received the vast majority of votes in the special late-night caucus.

As one HuffPo commenter says, if this was being done by Democrats you know the Republicans would be shouting it from the rooftops. James O’Keefe would be on every major TV network pimping his cut-and-paste videos of it.

About these ads

15 Responses to “Ron Paul Supporters Commit Actual Voter Fraud, Crash Nevada’s Orthodox Jewish Caucus”

  1. Charles II said

    I would guess that all of the Paul supporters who signed perjured themselves, since Paul tends to be regarded as anti-Israel, a major reason why Pubbies hate him.

    Strange, because Paul actually has a fairly balanced policy.

    At any rate, most Jews would probably not associate themselves with Paul.

    • The irony of this all is that this caucus was created just to make Sheldon Adelson happy.

      Romney’s surrogates have been working hard to carefully, quietly, gingerly convince Adelson to turn off his money spigot for Newt and donate to Romney instead, even as Ron Paul’s been helping out Romney by splitting the anti-Mitt vote. They know that Adelson’s a notorious hothead who can be stubborn and contrarian if pushed too hard or too clumsily.

      And what do the Ron Paul folks, Romney’s allies, do? They crap all over Adelson’s caucus.

      This may well have pissed off Adelson enough to justify another $10 million going Newt’s way.

  2. Bo said

    Aren’t orthodox Jewish voters allowed to vote for Paul?

    • Charles II said

      I don’t think there are any religious prohibitions/promotions regarding voting for Paul. It’s all political inclination. As the politics are, you have to be pretty far to the left to be Jewish and be ok with Paul’s stance toward Israel. (See the link in post #1) But then you have no attraction to the rest of his ideology.

      • Bo said

        I thought the left meant big government and more spending and the right was smaller government. Wouldn’t this mean the other GOP candidates are to the left of Ron Paul since he is the only one who has any plans to shrink the size of government and cut spending?

      • Charles II said

        Bo, you seem to believe the cartoon view of the world that the media put out.I recommend reading a lot of American history as a remedy.

        “The left” has never really controlled American politics. There were two brief periods, the Progressive era under Teddy Roosevelt and the Great Depression era under FDR where the left had substantial influence over government. During those two periods, a principal problem was corporate power. Corporate power was so extreme that it was leading the US into very bad directions.

        The Progressives increased the power of citizens vs. corporations partly by breaking up the largest corporations, partly through regulation (like the FDA) and partly through citizen empowerment through universal public schools, limitations on child labor, and so on. When FDR entered office, the country was in such dire shape–nearly a third of businesses closed and nearly a third of workers unemployed–that government intervention was required. The steps FDR took, in retrospect, were remarkably timid. He did hire about a million men to do public works, many of which exist today. He established Social Security, allowed people to form unions, and so on. But the actual amount of money spent was very small.

        What created Big Government as a permanent factor was World War II and the Cold War and now the “War on Terror”. See this graph:

        The left has been the main group resisting this permanent buildup.

        The budget is now disproportionately either (a) military or (b) benefits like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment, which individuals pay in and get out or (c) debt, which has mostly been piled on by Reagan and the Bushes. What people think of as “Big Government”–things like the EPA– are tiny. So-called “welfare” is at this point mostly Medicaid–much of which ends up in the pockets of insurance companies. Try living poor. It’s not fun at all!

        American government is the smallest of any industrialized nation, and that sure isn’t because of the right, with its profligacy and defense waste. It’s because of “the left,” which has insisted that we at least pay for what we spend.

        In short, the left has always been for the least government consistent with an orderly, prosperous, and compassionate society. Where the left has demanded government, it has mostly been to balance corporate power. This is what our Framers envisioned: that whenever a faction emerges that has power, it must be balanced by another faction.

        In the current crisis, I suspect that we will end up breaking up corporate power. That will enable us to reduce the size of government– particularly the military.

        That’s some of the real history of the United States.

      • Bo said

        I can’t reply to your reply, so I will use the reply button from the previous post. I never said that Republicans actually followed through with any of their ‘small government’ talk. I’ll admit I probably thought you were one, and wanted to point out that based on ‘common rhetoric’ or whatever you want to call it….that Ron Paul is more conservative than the other Republicans.

        That said, your post really doesn’t contain any facts about what makes an economy work well. I know that ‘the right’ has been far more hypocritical in regards to it’s record of fiscal responsibility (mainly because it likes to pretend to be for small government)…..up until Obama that is. I don’t buy the rhetoric that Ronald Reagan was as great as they say or that Jimmy Carter was as bad as they say. I also don’t believe that Bill Clinton was as great as Democrats like to think…for a couple of reasons not having anything to do with his behavior in office. Bush was terrible, and Obama is right there with him.

        In your exhaustive history research, did you ever hear of the depression of 1920? Maybe if FDR has followed those policies, the great depression would not have been so great.

      • Charles II said

        Bo, I know you’re not a regular, so you are not aware that we routinely discuss economic issues. We are very well aware of the post-WW I mini-depression, and regularly discuss the factors that make for a healthy economy.

        The post-WW I mini-depression was nowhere near as bad as the Great Depression. (See, for example, here) The real economists discuss it in places like here and here.

        I realize that a mythology has sprung up on the right about Warren Harding. We do not deal in mythology. Harding screwed his mistress in the White House and the country at Teapot Dome. Historians have consistently rated him as one of the worst presidents.

        Better start questioning the places where you get your mythology. They are lying to you.

      • Bo said

        Warren Harding? I never mentioned him. I know that history reviles him, but not Clinton despite Clinton’s own indiscretions in the white house. The fact is that the 1920 depression was not as severe as the great depression because it was not as long as the great depression. I am sure it helps you feel more secure in the rightness of your position to believe that someone in disagreement with you is falling for mythology.

      • Charles II said

        Bo, when you talk about the “policies” of the response to the 1920 depression, you are invoking the Harding Administration, whether you know it or not–and clearly you do not. If you had a clue, you’d answer facts with something that might change my opinion.

        What makes me “feel secure in the rightness of [my] position,” in addition to the fact that actually do know economics and finance, is the certainty that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Bo said

        You don’t sound like you know what you are talking about. Your facts are “I do not know that Harding was president”. In fact I did. Your facts are “Harding was reviled by history” as if that says it all regarding the effectiveness of his policies or non-policies depending on how you look at it. Your link to a tiny little chart showing a bigger dip during the great depression is worse than useless. The fact that Keynesian and Austrian economists have such huge fundamental disagreements on economics show that at least one large group of experts is fundamentally wrong despite them having more ‘knowledge’ than you. Logically, this means that someone who knows little but merely agrees with the experts who are right…is more right than the experts who are fundamentally wrong….yet have more knowledge. You may have lots of knowledge of economics and finance(though I have not seen any evidence of it yet), but it’s the wrong knowledge. My mere intuition and logic about what will work trumps your knowledge.

      • Bo said

        Let me just add that you are very arrogant. You can list facts and trivia all day long, but it doesn’t mean you have the capacity to interpret them independently.

      • Charles II said

        Bo, since you’re very obviously unhappy posting here, what with all of my ignorance and arrogance, let me politely invite you to go somewhere else.

    • Are you one of those folks for whom “left” means “evil”?

      Meanwhile, more on the sort of folks attracted to Ron Paul: http://t.co/DCynIv0I

      • Bo said

        Not evil exactly. I would say that the average leftie is probably a very generous person, when they are sharing other people’s money. I think the elite lefties are like the elite righties, working hand in hand together to fleece average Americans. One good example might be all the talk in the news awhile back about the Democrats and Republicans fighting about cutting spending in the budget plans and raising the debt limit. The term cutting itself is misleading because baseline budgeting dictates automatic increases of 8% every year. If they agree to only increase spending 6-7% a year over 10 years…the Democrats complain about the horrible Republicans wanting to cut programs (when spending is increasing)…..and Republicans can brag to their base and pretend they got real cuts through (when spending is increasing)….on top of which they are not even obligated to follow through with budgets projected out to 10 years.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: